He said it, far better than I ever have

[NYC Street]

http://www.standupkid.com/Site/StandupKid%20Blog/0AD4AEAE-0DB7-490D-8945-66F9994D33CC.html

Take a wander over to Mark Joyella's blog and read his post on the trend in television news - and why it isn't working.

[Consider This]

Television news and coffee is a poor comparison.

Coffee is way more important.

More seriously, according to Joyella, coffee lost its audience to other soft drinks BECAUSE its quality decreased.

TV newscasts began losing viewers to other media outlets -- even other media forms like the Internet -- BEFORE its quality decreased.

That's why the analogy doesn't work.

Stations aren't trying to operate more cheaply because they don't think people will notice. They're operating more cheaply because they're not making the money they used to. They audience is eroding no matter what they do. With that go the advertising dollars.

Maybe when people like Joyella pony up and buy a station and run its news department, they can show us how it's really done. They can find the silver bullet that will halt the outflow of ad dollars. Otherwise it reads like the whining of someone who wonders why things can't always be like they used to be because it was more comfortable for them then.

[adam & doctor drew]

quality of local news went down (that's assuming it was ever really up) as the volume of shows increased.
there just wasn't enough news, or enough staff, to do compellling television for multiple hours in the morning, plus noon, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 pm..... which led to stations re-hashing the same old s--- over and over and over, hoping the viewers wouldn't notice.

and is this isn't just a local problem..... check out the ever-expanding Today Show (if you can bear it).

[WOS]

and is this isn't just a local problem..... check out the ever-expanding Today Show (if you can bear it).

Good point. That's why, among other things, I left the Today show a while back, and never missed it.

[TVMattNYC]

quality of local news went down (that's assuming it was ever really up) as the volume of shows increased.
there just wasn't enough news, or enough staff, to do compellling television for multiple hours in the morning, plus noon, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 pm..... which led to stations re-hashing the same old s--- over and over and over, hoping the viewers wouldn't notice.

and is this isn't just a local problem..... check out the ever-expanding Today Show (if you can bear it).

AMEN!

Seriously ... if the networks can cover the entire world in 30 minutes, why the hell do local stations need FIVE AND A HALF HOURS to cover their little markets?

[Produce man]

AMEN!

Seriously ... if the networks can cover the entire world in 30 minutes, why the hell do local stations need FIVE AND A HALF HOURS to cover their little markets?Because they're trying to hit different demos all day.

[TVMattNYC]

Because they're trying to hit different demos all day.

Stupid.

News is news, whether you're a 13-year-old girl or a 78-year-old man.

PROGRAMMING, however, is another matter.

I think the problem lies in station managers not understanding the difference.

[Produce man]

Stupid.

News is news, whether you're a 13-year-old girl or a 78-year-old man.

PROGRAMMING, however, is another matter.

I think the problem lies in station managers not understanding the difference.Nothing "stupid" about it. Not saying anything one way or another, but face it. Tha audience you face coming out of Oprah is not the same as the one you face coming out of nightly news.

[TVMattNYC]

Nothing "stupid" about it. Not saying anything one way or another, but face it. Tha audience you face coming out of Oprah is not the same as the one you face coming out of nightly news.

So? Point?

[Produce man]

So? Point?Point is, not everyone works at the network, and different shows during the day cater to different demos at the local level.

[s'news]

Hey Matt, you're feeding a troll. Move on.

[Consider This]

Seriously ... if the networks can cover the entire world in 30 minutes, why the hell do local stations need FIVE AND A HALF HOURS to cover their little markets?

Networks can't cover the entire world in a half hour. That's just all of the network anchor pontificating and adult diaper commercials local affiliates will tolerate.

Locals don't need 5.5 hours to cover their markets. They need the ad revenue.

[TV Dad]

Locals don't need 5.5 hours to cover their markets. They need the ad revenue.

That's right. Why pay for syndicated programming and only get a portion of the avails, when you already have 99% of the staff in place to create another newscast and get 100% of the ad revenue? Even if your 4pm newscast is getting it's tail kicked by Oprah (or whoever), if you can hold down 2nd place, you're ahead of the game because: #1 You don't have to shell out the cash to get Oprah, #2 You get all the 2nd place ad revenue, and #3 You don't have to run any extra non-producing programming that you may have been forced to take as part of getting Oprah. When television was the only game in town, broadcasters didn't have to worry about making money decisions like this because folks were lining up to run tv ads. But with the erosion of viewers and the diversification of advertising venues, tv stations have to watch the bottom line like a hawk.

[2:30]

The quality of television news began to decline when the first bean counter confused getting the picture with getting the story.

[TVMattNYC]

That's right. Why pay for syndicated programming and only get a portion of the avails, when you already have 99% of the staff in place to create another newscast and get 100% of the ad revenue? Even if your 4pm newscast is getting it's tail kicked by Oprah (or whoever), if you can hold down 2nd place, you're ahead of the game because: #1 You don't have to shell out the cash to get Oprah, #2 You get all the 2nd place ad revenue, and #3 You don't have to run any extra non-producing programming that you may have been forced to take as part of getting Oprah. When television was the only game in town, broadcasters didn't have to worry about making money decisions like this because folks were lining up to run tv ads. But with the erosion of viewers and the diversification of advertising venues, tv stations have to watch the bottom line like a hawk.

Oh.

I get it.

So it's cheaper to put crap on.

[Produce man]

No, YOU don't get it Matt. You sit there in you ivory tower, having NO experience in local news, (you said so yourself) and try to analyze what goes on in the real world.

Guess what, you're full of s$#t.


When was the last time you picked up a camera?

Let me guess........never.

Interviewed any recent widows, or parents whose kid just got killed?

No?

Didn't think so.


(And one wonders why the nets are all messed up.)

[TVMattNYC]

No, YOU don't get it Matt. You sit there in you ivory tower, having NO experience in local news, (you said so yourself) and try to analyze what goes on in the real world.

Guess what, you're full of s$#t.


When was the last time you picked up a camera?

Let me guess........never.

Interviewed any recent widows, or parents whose kid just got killed?

No?

Didn't think so.


(And one wonders why the nets are all messed up.)

I have plenty of experience in local news ... in RADIO ... where the assignments are more frequent, and the deadlines tighter.

I picked up a camera just last week, as a matter of fact.

And I see no point in interviewing recent widows or any family members of kids who just got killed because it's not NEWSWORTHY. What could they possibly say that the viewer wouldn't expect them to say in the first place? DUMB DUMB DUMB ... and of course, INSENSITIVE.

It's NO wonder why local "news" is such a wasteland.

[Produce man]

I have plenty of experience in local news ... in RADIO ... where the assignments are more frequent, and the deadlines tighter.

I picked up a camera just last week, as a matter of fact.

And I see no point in interviewing recent widows or any family members of kids who just got killed because it's not NEWSWORTHY. What could they possibly say that the viewer wouldn't expect them to say in the first place? DUMB DUMB DUMB ... and of course, INSENSITIVE.

It's NO wonder why local "news" is such a wasteland.How would you know? You've never done it. Local "radio"? Please.

[wxgeek]

I have plenty of experience in local news ... in RADIO ... where the assignments are more frequent, and the deadlines tighter.

I picked up a camera just last week, as a matter of fact.



Why the hell would you need a camera for radio? I think you're doing it wrong.

[adam & doctor drew]

Interviewed any recent widows, or parents whose kid just got killed?

No?

Didn't think so.


(And one wonders why the nets are all messed up.)

I agree with Matt.
the proliferation of that kind of stuff is probably a strong reason why local news viewership is plummeting.

[Produce man]

I agree with Matt.
the proliferation of that kind of stuff is probably a strong reason why local news viewership is plummeting.I didn't say I agree with it, just that I've had to do it.

[Kace]

I've done newsradio before. It's fun going through the news material, getting your scripts ready, recording your 30 second newsbits to play throughout the morning, then another for the midday. Not to mention, the Live news show. And there's always the AP stuff and that news spitter as I called it.

[Sultanosurf]

I picked up a camera just last week, as a matter of fact.

Sorry to go further off-track, but why the hell would you pick up a camera? Did we miss a sudden tectonic shift in network union rules? And wtf would they want a producer grabbing a box?

And I see no point in interviewing recent widows or any family members of kids who just got killed because it's not NEWSWORTHY. What could they possibly say that the viewer wouldn't expect them to say in the first place? DUMB DUMB DUMB ... and of course, INSENSITIVE.

It's NO wonder why local "news" is such a wasteland.

Gee, 'guess Daniel Pearl's widow, or any number of victim's family members isn't newsworthy? Or family members of the young man just shot on BART in SF?

Local news has much more immediate impact on the average viewer than anything happening in Gaza.

Your disconnect is appalling.

And your comments also call into question all you purported experience.

[Sultanosurf]

As to Joyella's column, I'd agree that the local coffee bar has lost its touch after seeing stations dump great anchors and reporters to bring in people who can't even pronounce neighborhoods, let alone connect with them.

A few shops still get it, and the numbers show.

I still think the best red light would be anybody who could think beyond the cookie-cutter model, and counter-program with something beyond the current local news format. Who knows, maybe someone will have the ingenuity to pull local news back into a later time slot where working folks can actually see it.

Either that or gimmick up the concept even further -- "Judge Chuck Scarborough"???

[ewink]

Seriously ... if the networks can cover the entire world in 30 minutes, why the hell do local stations need FIVE AND A HALF HOURS to cover their little markets?
No kidding!
That's why those 24 hour network news channels have failed so terribly.

Oh...

[Sultanosurf]

...I see no point in interviewing recent widows or any family members of kids who just got killed because it's not NEWSWORTHY. What could they possibly say that the viewer wouldn't expect them to say in the first place? DUMB DUMB DUMB ... and of course, INSENSITIVE.

Boy, this comment really gnaws at me. Of course interviewing family members is newsworthy. It's one of the toughest things a journalist does, but it's core to the job.

Not only does it tell the story better, it helps solve crimes and gets bad people off the streets. The BTK killer, the Unabomber, and so many more, including ways I've seen firsthand. Most memorably, the time I was at a street shooting in a crowd of people interviewing the mother of one of the victims. Turns out the shooter was right there, and was so impacted by the mother's emotion that he walked over to us and gave himself up.

Victim's families from drunk driving crashes, from hit & runs, from plane & train wrecks, from mine collapses -- they're not easy to watch, and they're sure not easy interviews to conduct, but they convey important messages.

Matt, you're always so good at ducking these direct questions, but maybe you can tell us just what sort of content is allowable in your scheme of things?

[TVMattNYC]

Boy, this comment really gnaws at me. Of course interviewing family members is newsworthy. It's one of the toughest things a journalist does, but it's core to the job.

Not only does it tell the story better, it helps solve crimes and gets bad people off the streets. The BTK killer, the Unabomber, and so many more, including ways I've seen firsthand. Most memorably, the time I was at a street shooting in a crowd of people interviewing the mother of one of the victims. Turns out the shooter was right there, and was so impacted by the mother's emotion that he walked over to us and gave himself up.


No. It doesn't tell the story any better than if you would respectfully kept your distance.

And I'm sure in the case of the street shooting, the mother would have been emotional with or without the reporter getting in her face ... thus facilitating the confession.

[TVMattNYC]

Sorry to go further off-track, but why the hell would you pick up a camera? Did we miss a sudden tectonic shift in network union rules? And wtf would they want a producer grabbing a box?



Gee, 'guess Daniel Pearl's widow, or any number of victim's family members isn't newsworthy? Or family members of the young man just shot on BART in SF?

Local news has much more immediate impact on the average viewer than anything happening in Gaza.

Your disconnect is appalling.

And your comments also call into question all you purported experience.

I maintain my membership in four professional unions.

And no ... exploiting the emotions of family members who've just lost loved ones is NEVER newsworthy.

YOUR disconnect is what is killing our professional image.

[Sultanosurf]

...I'm sure in the case of the street shooting, the mother would have been emotional with or without the reporter getting in her face ... thus facilitating the confession.


You, NewsGod Matt are sure, but actually you don't know, since it was my interview that provoked the shooter to surrender. And you have no way of knowing whether he would've done the same thing had it not occurred.

And of course you're also dismissing the reality of countless others who hear the impact of drunk drivers on families, or of crimes that are solved by hearing from them, etc.

I maintain my membership in four professional unions.

And no ... exploiting the emotions of family members who've just lost loved ones is NEVER newsworthy.

YOUR disconnect is what is killing our professional image.

Four? h-m-m. So many questions on that.

But you continue to dodge my question. You tell us what we're not supposed to show, but avoid telling us what we should.

Like it or not, part of being the camera that captures the world we live in is the impact on people. It's not just reading off stats and showing some wide shot of the intersection. And far from exploiting family members, my experience time after time has been that family finds an interview cathartic, they're able to humanize the person they lost much better than any IO, and they want them remembered as a living being, not just another number.

You would deny them that.

And you also deny the positive impact such interviews have on preventing other tragedies, or in solving crimes.

BTW, there's a responsibility that comes with broaching that trust. Funerals are off-limits, and it takes a deft touch to find the right ways and times, which requires a connection you just don't seem to grasp...

[TVMattNYC]

Like it or not, part of being the camera that captures the world we live in is the impact on people. It's not just reading off stats and showing some wide shot of the intersection. And far from exploiting family members, my experience time after time has been that family finds an interview cathartic, they're able to humanize the person they lost much better than any IO, and they want them remembered as a living being, not just another number.

You would deny them that.

And you also deny the positive impact such interviews have on preventing other tragedies, or in solving crimes.

Actually, doing lazy-a$$ police blotter stories is the most amateur way to fill a show.

And while you call it "humanizing" the story ... trust me ... the VIEWERS see it as EXPLOITING the family members.

Shoving a mic in someone's face during a time of acute emotional upheaval.

Klassy.

The term "ambulance chaser" comes to mind. But at least those shyster lawyers are actually offering a SERVICE while trying to make a buck off of others' misfortune.

[TAFKA wacowx]

I'd have to agree with Matt. As an outside observer now (been out of TV now for almost 2 years) those interviews with the hurting family members just make us cringe. There's really no reason for them other than exploitation, plain and simple.

[Sultanosurf]

There's really no reason for them other than exploitation, plain and simple.

There are plenty of reasons, I've already detailed several. If the interview is poorly handled of course it can look bad. Then we all cringe. But the situations you call 'exploitation' often occur because a family calls a news organization looking to for help in publicizing their plight. Just as law enforcement turns to the media, because people do watch, and our reports help solve crimes and prevent future tragedy.

Actually, doing lazy-a$$ police blotter stories is the most amateur way to fill a show.

And while you call it "humanizing" the story ... trust me ... the VIEWERS see it as EXPLOITING the family members.

Shoving a mic in someone's face during a time of acute emotional upheaval.

Klassy.


And yet plenty of research shows that viewers want information about crime in their communities as part of their highest priority in watching.

No, I don't just 'trust you' since some of the most memorable pieces of television journalism I've seen have also included effective victim interviews.

Once again, you keep preaching to us unwashed that you know best on what not to fill a news show, yet you can't be bothered to impart what we should be running.

But hey, with you we won't be fulfilling our mandate in recording a moment in time, which could include the honest depiction of 'acute emotional upheaval.' We'll make an appointment to come back when everything's all composed and rehearsed.

News at Six - Sanitized for Your Protection!

[TVMattNYC]

And yet plenty of research shows that viewers want information about crime in their communities as part of their highest priority in watching.

Yes.

"Research."

Whatever.

[adam & doctor drew]

my experience time after time has been that family finds an interview cathartic, they're able to humanize the person they lost much better than any IO, and they want them remembered as a living being, not just another number.
You would deny them that.


come on, is that REALLY the reason you did (and are doing) it??

[Sultanosurf]

Whatever.

Pretty much my opinion by now on anything you post.

Except your claim that you 'picked up a camera,' which was good for a laugh...

[Sultanosurf]

come on, is that REALLY the reason you did (and are doing) it??

Yep, it's part of it, but isn't the key providing as much information and letting the viewer decide? I've never suggested gratuitous use of anything. But again, wtf do you guys suggest we do to fill a news show? Skip witnesses? Leave the families out?

Why not fill us in on your ideal of a local news show?

So far, it's been "whatever"...

[adam & doctor drew]

Yep, it's part of it, but isn't the key providing as much information and letting the viewer decide?
if you're truly doing it for the family, then you should share with them whatever revenue was generated by the newscast.
I'm sure they'd find that "cathartic" too.

just admit you're shoving mics in faces of grieving family members cause you think it's good TV and will help your ratings.
people may disagree with it but at least you'd be honest.

[TVMattNYC]

Yep, it's part of it, but isn't the key providing as much information and letting the viewer decide? I've never suggested gratuitous use of anything. But again, wtf do you guys suggest we do to fill a news show? Skip witnesses? Leave the families out?

Why not fill us in on your ideal of a local news show?

So far, it's been "whatever"...

How about filling your local "news" show ... with real NEWS that actually matters to a majority of your viewing audience.

Shootings, fires, and other police blotter nonsense affects no one other than those directly involved.

Why not try doing some investigative pieces? Something that involves a bit more than consulting wires AND newspapers.

Government corruption is always a crowd pleaser. Why not start there?

[Sultanosurf]

just admit you're shoving mics in faces of grieving family members cause you think it's good TV and will help your ratings. people may disagree with it but at least you'd be honest.

No, that's not why we do stories on crime, or interview victims and families. It's to provide information. And I can't ever remember shoving a mike in anybody's case. Wow, such bitterness. If you do actually work in local news (But do you A&DD?) you've got a lot of self-hatred and denial going. If you don't, you seem to be keying on something that's the exception far more than the rule.

How about filling your local "news" show ... with real NEWS that actually matters to a majority of your viewing audience.

Shootings, fires, and other police blotter nonsense affects no one other than those directly involved.

Why not try doing some investigative pieces? Something that involves a bit more than consulting wires AND newspapers.

Government corruption is always a crowd pleaser. Why not start there?

We all do plenty of stories on govt corruption, when it occurs. But that's it for your whole show? Investigate what? That's it? That's all you've got? You're showing a whole lot of ignorance about local news if you think that wires and newspapers fuel the kind of stories you've been complaining about.

You dismissed research, but organizations have spent plenty of time and money to define exactly what local viewers want, and as much as you demean it, I've seen the research, and sat in with viewers. It's a helluva lot better feedback than what you purport. They want news on their community. And that includes water line breaks, power rate hikes, school issues, and yes -- fires and crime. As I said earlier, I wish we could break out of the mold and do a format different than every other station. Maybe it'll happen, I can hope. But telling great stories that matter, with all the elements available, should always remain key.

[adam & doctor drew]

No, that's not why we do stories on crime, or interview victims and families. It's to provide information. And I can't ever remember shoving a mike in anybody's case. Wow, such bitterness. If you do actually work in local news (But do you A&DD?) you've got a lot of self-hatred and denial going. If you don't, you seem to be keying on something that's the exception far more than the rule.

in previous posts you said it was "newsworthy" and "cathartic" for the family that you interview them, that you and your camera had the power to elicit a confession and/or solve crime, and that "research" showed you were doing exactly what your viewers wanted.

now it's "the exception far more than the rule"?
wow, that changed fast.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Sultan...think about this as just a normal person and not as one in TV:

Someone is shot about 25 miles from your house. Do you care? Just a normal drug deal gone bad...or a husband who kills his wife after discovering her infidelity...or maybe just a drive-by? No, why would you? It has zero impact on your life.

It happens in your neighborhood...you care...BUT 99.999% of the rest of the people living in your area feel the same way as you did in the first example.

Someone shoots up the local amusement park....NEWS...definitely! I go there with the family once a month. I could have been one of the people killed! A BIG story, worthy of intense coverage.

Same thing goes with fires and accidents that don't affect major commuting arteries at rush hours. No one cares unless they were directly affected.

A firestorm that wipes out several homes? A no-brainer.

An intense snowsquall causes a 50-car pileup? Run with it.

The unfortunate thing is that many of the investigative pieces that people would line up to watch are just not being done becuase they require weeks and weeks of preperation and investigation. TV stations are just not willing to give that much time and dedication to a story.

Stories that affect everyone ARE out there...they just take some work to dig up.

[Sultanosurf]

in previous posts you said it was "newsworthy" and "cathartic" for the family that you interview them, that you and your camera had the power to elicit a confession and/or solve crime, and that "research" showed you were doing exactly what your viewers wanted.

now it's "the exception far more than the rule"?
wow, that changed fast.

No change. My comment was to the point that family interviews that seem intrusive are the exception far more than the rule. (Of course, we all probably remember the bad ones more easily)

You conveniently dodged my question on whether you actually work in TV news.

Besides just your attempt at put-downs, are you denying the worth of victim or witness interviews? (If you don't work in the industry, you can't imagine how tough it can be to get those interviews, which can impart so much) Do you deny the effect of the media in crime-solving?

What's your answer on how we're supposed to fill a local show? You and I can have a good discussion on this, but how about something of substance?

[TVMattNYC]

No, that's not why we do stories on crime, or interview victims and families. It's to provide information. And I can't ever remember shoving a mike in anybody's case. Wow, such bitterness. If you do actually work in local news (But do you A&DD?) you've got a lot of self-hatred and denial going. If you don't, you seem to be keying on something that's the exception far more than the rule.



We all do plenty of stories on govt corruption, when it occurs. But that's it for your whole show? Investigate what? That's it? That's all you've got? You're showing a whole lot of ignorance about local news if you think that wires and newspapers fuel the kind of stories you've been complaining about.

You dismissed research, but organizations have spent plenty of time and money to define exactly what local viewers want, and as much as you demean it, I've seen the research, and sat in with viewers. It's a helluva lot better feedback than what you purport. They want news on their community. And that includes water line breaks, power rate hikes, school issues, and yes -- fires and crime. As I said earlier, I wish we could break out of the mold and do a format different than every other station. Maybe it'll happen, I can hope. But telling great stories that matter, with all the elements available, should always remain key.

It's spelled "mic", by the way.

And investigative pieces are just one suggestion. I don't know your market well enough to show you how to do your job for you. I'm sorry about that.

And news organizations spend plenty of time and money on consultants, too -- which I also disregard. I can't account for their lack of discipline in spending resources.

[Sultanosurf]

Sultan...think about this as just a normal person and not as one in TV:

Someone is shot about 25 miles from your house. Do you care? Just a normal drug deal gone bad...or a husband who kills his wife after discovering her infidelity...or maybe just a drive-by? No, why would you? It has zero impact on your life.

It happens in your neighborhood...you care...BUT 99.999% of the rest of the people living in your area feel the same way as you did in the first example.

Someone shoots up the local amusement park....NEWS...definitely! I go there with the family once a month. I could have been one of the people killed! A BIG story, worthy of intense coverage.

First off, hopefully I approach my job with the same level of curiosity as any viewer. I'm curious for them.

Am I happy that neighborhood crime stories often get the lead? No, but I didn't think that's what we're talking about.

What seems to be the rub for some people here is intrusive victim or victim family interviews. Which I agree can be done wrong. BUT I also think interviews are an important element to that type of story. If the ride at the theme park goes haywire, you'd want an interview from witnesses or family members wouldn't you? Or are you satisfied with whatever the IO or corporate guy says?

To use one story in particular as an example, the New Year's shooting at a BART station in the Bay Area -- getting insight from the shooting victim's family gives a fuller insight on who the guy was, and if he was capable of doing something to incite being shot by the BART security guy. It seems just as much an element as all the citizen phone video in providing information to viewers.

[TAFKA wacowx]

First off, hopefully I approach my job with the same level of curiosity as any viewer. I'm curious for them.

I just think that, unfortunately, what is interesting and curious to someone who works in Tv news is not in the least bit interesting to a normal person. We always talk about compelling video and great sound bites when, in fact, in many stories that stuff may not matter because the actual subject of the story is not really important to a typical person.

Even in your BART example: What about people who never ride BART? How do you make it relevant to them? A rowdy guy was shot by security? Sounds like something that probably happens a lot to an extent. Security guys are licensed to keep the peace in their jusidiction. What incited this guy to be shot by a security guard?? Does it matter? I mean, really? It affected the revellers at that station, that night. Someone did something so rash that security felt that shooting that person was the only solution at the time...he or she obviously was threatened by some action.

A guy who is on BART and shoots up the Powell Street station, injuring a security guard and innocent bystanders...that's a much better story. Hey...if it happened there, what is BART doing about protecting me at the Glen Park Station that I get the train at every day? Is security beefed up enough to prevent this from happening to me?

Your example: Well...I guess you could argue that maybe the security guard was out of bounds and that could lead to an argument that security is not trained well enough so maybe my local security guard could fly off the handle?...... Just wishy washy.

Look past the event and look at the big picture. If there is none...look for some way to make it more relevant or don't do the story.

Again, I am just playing this from the non-news side of the fence. Too often, newsies get caught up in what is cool to them and not to what is cool to a viewer.

[Sultanosurf]

It's spelled "mic", by the way.

And investigative pieces are just one suggestion. I don't know your market well enough to show you how to do your job for you. I'm sorry about that.

And news organizations spend plenty of time and money on consultants, too -- which I also disregard. I can't account for their lack of discipline in spending resources.

Listen, I've been tilling the field in this biz for over three decades now, just like my dad the engineer did. That's the way he and others spelled mike, and so do I. Good grief. Can you be any more obstinate?

And you can't even give one reasonable description of how local news should be presented in your market, so don't try to hide behind some sorry-ass superiority about where I work or have worked, which I'd put up against your supposed experience anytime.

Of course, your arrogant choice to disregard research is done at your own peril. For the rest of us, it's one of many tools in better serving our audience, something you obviously disdain.

I just think that, unfortunately, what is interesting and curous to someone who works in Tv news is not in the least bit interesting to a normal person....
Even in your BART example: What about people who never ride BART? How do you make it relevant to them? A rowdy guy was shot by security? Sounds like something that probably happens a lot to an extent...

Again, I'm a person and father first, and a journalist second. Maybe I'm a little jaded due to my profession, but it's always been drilled into me to have the same curiosity as my viewer.

Better check out the BART story and video, TAFKA, the guy was cooperating, went prone, there was a brief struggle that didn't appear to threaten the officers, then one pulled out his pistol and shot the guy.

Knowing who the guy was through his family helps everyone understand if he was really a threat, just as the citizen telephone video gives more insight. And a lot of people in the Bay Area not only ride BART, but also deal with cops, which is the larger issue.

[News Is Broken]

Sultan...think about this as just a normal person and not as one in TV:

Someone is shot about 25 miles from your house. Do you care? Just a normal drug deal gone bad...or a husband who kills his wife after discovering her infidelity...or maybe just a drive-by? No, why would you? It has zero impact on your life.

Who got shot? Is it someone I know? Is it a coworker? Someone who goes to my church perhaps? A friend of my wife? One of my kid's friends or classmates? Or one of their parents?

If you never do the story, I'll never know. Even if it's just a matter of answering "what were all those cop cars doing in that neighborhood on my way home from work tonight?" it's newsworthy and relevant to me. People are nosy. They ogle at car wrecks and cop cars. They want to know what's going on, even if it's not necessarily relevant to them.

[TVMattNYC]

Who got shot? Is it someone I know? Is it a coworker? Someone who goes to my church perhaps? A friend of my wife? One of my kid's friends or classmates? Or one of their parents?

If you never do the story, I'll never know.

Of course you would.

Someone would eventually call you if it was someone you personally know.

However, 20 million other people don't need to hear about it.

[News Is Broken]

Of course you would.

Someone would eventually call you if it was someone you personally know.

However, 20 million other people don't need to hear about it.

A parent of a classmate of my 12 year old daughter? Yeah I'm sure my phone would ring off the hook within seconds of the event. :rolleyes:

Do yourself a favor: Stop thinking the world begins and ends in Manhattan. Then stop thinking you know everything about everything. Maybe then you'll be less of an asphalt.

Just a tip. I hear you New Yorkers are big on those.

[csusandman]

Is it or is it not newsworthy? What should be covered and what shouldn't? Get the family or leave 'em alone? Cute fuzzy kitties chasing their tails or a 13 car pileup with body parts strewn everywhere?

Hmm... Blah, blah, and blah.

You can please some people some of the time but you're not gonna please everyone all of the time. Ever. That's just a cold, hard fact in the news bidness that those in the bidness, somewhat, understand; but not everyone. The 'hard' part is making the decisions of which stories to go after that day and which to after the next. But we all knew that already...

A shooting in some neighborhood may not affect you personally, but it does affect someone else that may live there. A car accident that ties up some intersection on the other side of town does affect someone who drives through that multiple times a day. Or some company that goes through massive lay-offs, and happens to be your company? Well whaddaya know... you're suddenly affected. You may not be everytime everyday, but at some point, you just might be.

If the news were to cover what everyone else wanted, the news would be 11ty-7 hours long. That's why producers and AEs and NDs have meetings numerous times a day, hopefully, to decide what goes on and what doesn't. And that's their opinion. Sometimes it's right on and sometimes (more often than not...) it's off the mark.

And that also goes for radio, paper, internet, etc. Not just TV...

So what's the solution? There isn't one. At least one that pleases everyone.

[TVMattNYC]

A parent of a classmate of my 12 year old daughter? Yeah I'm sure my phone would ring off the hook within seconds of the event. :rolleyes:

Do yourself a favor: Stop thinking the world begins and ends in Manhattan.

If *you* NEED to know about it, someone WILL call you.

Otherwise, sit tight.

And this has nothing to do with Manhattan -- although apparently your repeatedly bringing it up suggests a degree of New York Envy.

[Produce man]

"New York Envy"....now that's some funny stuff!:rockon: :thumbsup:

[TAFKA wacowx]

Sultan...I didn't even look into that BART story...just went on what you reported in this thread. It didn't affect me enough for me to even look deeper into the story. ;)

Listen to what Matt is saying without prejudice for a second. Do you honestly think that every shooting in NYC gets coverage? No way...not even close. Why should every shooting that happens in other cities get the royal treatment? Same goes for fires and accidents. They happen each and every day. Sure there are some exceptions: A city that has never ever had a murder...or one that has a large increase in murders...IF you can get to the bottom of why and what could be done about it....etc.

NIB: And yes, if you NEED to know about the death, you WILL find out from someone. Why should a news anchor be the one to tell you about the death of someone supposedly close to your circle?

As for the uber-long...let's-include-everything-that-everyone-'wants'-to-see argument from csusandman:

That's exactly the wrong way to look at it. You should be paring down the newscast to include things that in fact affect the greatest number of people in your viewing audience hopefully. What you are essentially saying is that since every story actually does affect SOMEBODY in the market, we should include it? So make me sit through 15 minutes of crap (out of a possible what, 23 total minutes?) I could care less about? That's the WHOLE reason why TV news viewership continues to dwindle....making a viewer sit through irrelevant items that appear relevant to the news department....on the surface...or have some great cell phone video or something to that effect.

(I like the discussion here and I hope I am not overstepping my bounds...being out of the business for almost 2 years. It's just that I truly do not watch local news anymore and I am trying to explain what I am noticing from a viewer standpoint. A few others on this board seem to get it too...like Adam and Dr. Drew and TVMatt....look at one of your newscasts from our point of view sometime and ask yourself "Is this story relevant to me and if not, what is the reason it's being done?" If you have no good answer, you may have found another one of those examples we have been pointing out. Try it with a competitor's newscast first so you can feel better about the critique. ;) )

[csusandman]

...

As for the uber-long...let's-include-everything-that-everyone-'wants'-to-see argument from csusandman:

That's exactly the wrong way to look at it. You should be paring down the newscast to include things that in fact affect the greatest number of people in your viewing audience hopefully. What you are essentially saying is that since every story actually does affect SOMEBODY in the market, we should include it? So make me sit through 15 minutes of crap (out of a possible what, 23 total minutes?) I could care less about? That's the WHOLE reason why TV news viewership continues to dwindle....making a viewer sit through irrelevant items that appear relevant to the news department....on the surface...or have some great cell phone video or something to that effect.

(I like the discussion here and I hope I am not overstepping my bounds...being out of the business for almost 2 years. It's just that I truly do not watch local news anymore and I am trying to explain what I am noticing from a viewer standpoint. A few others on this board seem to get it too...like Adam and Dr. Drew and TVMatt....look at one of your newscasts from our point of view sometime and ask yourself "Is this story relevant to me and if not, what is the reason it's being done?" If you have no good answer, you may have found another one of those examples we have been pointing out. Try it with a competitor's newscast first so you can feel better about the critique. ;) )

Sorry if I mislead you! I guess it made sense in my head as I was typing it... and my head's all congested with whatever's floating around right now!

I actually agree with you in that the news SHOULD be "...paring down the newscast to include things that in fact affect the greatest number of people in your viewing audience..." But you and I both know that that doesn't happen. It's just so hard for each news station to get it right everytime, try as they might. What YOU might think is newsworthy, I might not; and vice-versa. There are people in the bidness whose job it is to make those decisions, on content, and there are the rest of us who make it happen.

"...making a viewer sit through irrelevant items that appear relevant to the news department..." That's gonna happen in every newscast every night. And to be honest with you, I DO watch my own station and wonder "What were we thinking?!" on some stories!

While my viewfinder is, the news is NOT black and white; it's a huge gray (grey?!) area regarding what's relevant and what's not. I'm sure it's a really tough job trying to decide what story to air that affects the greatest amount of people.

Glad I don't have it...

[News Is Broken]

If *you* NEED to know about it, someone WILL call you.

Otherwise, sit tight.

Oh please, that's true of ANYTHING. F*** it, let's not do news at all, then. Matt Almighty has spoken. If people NEED to know something, SOMEONE will CALL THEM.

Priceless. :rolleyes:

And this has nothing to do with Manhattan -- although apparently your repeatedly bringing it up suggests a degree of New York Envy.

Yeah, wow Matt, once again you've nailed it! :rolleyes: Gee I sure wish I lived in a freezing overcrowded cess pit where violent crimes are so common place they don't make the news because no one cares unless THEY are the ones getting shot or stabbed. Where do I sign up?

Once again Matt proves that a large salary is usually a good indicator of someone who literally has more money than brains.

[Sultanosurf]

Someone would eventually call you if it was someone you personally know. However, 20 million other people don't need to hear about it.

Hilarious. Or sad. But mostly illuminating -- about Matt.

Sultan...I didn't even look into that BART story...just went on what you reported in this thread. It didn't affect me enough for me to even look deeper into the story. ;)


So you can have an informed opinion on what I'm talking about, which goes directly to the whole conversation, why not take a look at the story from KTVU:

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

Or, since the story's now picked up national interest, a print read-through from the Boston Globe:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view/2009_01_07_Officer_resigns_after_fatal_train_stati on_shooting/srvc=home&position=recent

Listen to what Matt is saying without prejudice for a second.

That's kinda hard, since it's not just NYC, but news shops in LA, Chicago, or nearly every other market where we face the same choice every day, as you'll see from the BART story. And sorry, but from his comments, by now I've got some real doubts about Matt's connection to our industry.

...I truly do not watch local news anymore and I am trying to explain what I am noticing from a viewer standpoint.

You don't even watch local news, yet want to tell us what should be on it?

Listen, I get your point, you like many others, as a viewer, think local news has trivialized crime. I thought we were talking about victim family interviews, but now it's seemed to spill over into a general criticism of the business. And I hear your frustration.

There's no doubt we focus more on some stories than we should, sometimes we generate more heat than general interest would probably justify. But I think most professionals in this business strive mightily every day to put together a news capsule that provides viewers with valid, useful information.

Even though we'd all like to see it, so far none of the critics on this thread has come up with a viable alternative. And neither has the industry itself.

[SigSauer]

Speaking as a 20+ year veteran, there are times when you do need to talk to the family of someone who was killed.

My problem is when we interview (or try to interview) the family of anyone and everyone who was murdered or killed in a car wreck.

Family of some guy that was murdered and the killer is still on the loose? Sure, go try to talk with them.

Family of a known gangbanger or other lowlife who was killed in a bar fight? Who gives a sh!t what the family thinks? The incident doesn't affect anyone other than the people directly involved and the dead guy probably had it coming.

As a fellow photographer said a few years ago (paraphrased): "Why do we always go interview these grieving mothers? They all say the same thing, no matter how much of a scumbag their kid was. Are we doing it on the off chance that we find the one mom who's gonna say, "I'm glad the little bastard got greased! He was a terrible son!"

[adam & doctor drew]

You conveniently dodged my question on whether you actually work in TV news.
not anymore.
used to.
hated it.
got out.
but how's that relevant to the discussion?
are only people who currently work in it allowed to have an opinion?


Besides just your attempt at put-downs, are you denying the worth of victim or witness interviews?
what did I say that was a put-down?


What's your answer on how we're supposed to fill a local show? You and I can have a good discussion on this, but how about something of substance?
anything that affects a large number of people.
right now, anything in the jobs/layoffs/financial planning/re-training yourself for a new career area would be useful to viewers, I assume.
certainly more useful than the VO on the abandoned warehouse fire that affects no one.
(or the random shooting/stabbing that affects no one but the people involved).
(or the "health news" about some study that has no definitive result and won't directly affect anyone's life for years, if ever).

I have no idea what market you're in, or what you do (and don't need to know).
but I know there's a lot of junk in local newscasts.
which is why I seldom watch.
if things are going so well, why do viewership levels keep going down?

[TAFKA wacowx]

Speaking as a 20+ year veteran, there are times when you do need to talk to the family of someone who was killed.

My problem is when we interview (or try to interview) the family of anyone and everyone who was murdered or killed in a car wreck.

Family of some guy that was murdered and the killer is still on the loose? Sure, go try to talk with them.

Family of a known gangbanger or other lowlife who was killed in a bar fight? Who gives a sh!t what the family thinks? The incident doesn't affect anyone other than the people directly involved and the dead guy probably had it coming.

As a fellow photographer said a few years ago (paraphrased): "Why do we always go interview these grieving mothers? They all say the same thing, no matter how much of a scumbag their kid was. Are we doing it on the off chance that we find the one mom who's gonna say, "I'm glad the little bastard got greased! He was a terrible son!"

I agree completely. Interview the murdered relations with the killer on the loose. That's something that affects me...Heck...with this guy on the loose I could be the next victim conceivably. Maybe I can help find the killer?

Heck, don't even cover the bar fight unless it occured in a 'non-crimey' part of town or has some other relevance.

Sultan. I appreciate this discussion. And I guess I do watch maybe 15 minutes of local news a week on average. I offer my opinion as someone who used to LOVE watching news, but has found nothing of value in it recently. Once I didn't have to watch it at work as part of being within the newscast, I found there was nothing that really drove me to watch.

Actually, I think the people that have the most to add to a discussion like this are former newsies like me, Spike, Dr Drew...etc. We know what it takes to create a newscast, we have all been there. We see the product now with a much different and non-jaundiced eye and can give a much clearer, non-biased opinion of what, we as viewers would like to see. Being in a newsroom gives you a horribly skewed opinion of what the general public wants to see in a newscast.

Lastly, I think that Adam and Dr. Drew and I...and to some extent TVMatt HAVE been offering you suggestions: Show stories that really and truly affect the most people in your market. The easy targets of fires, accidents and run of the mill murders just turn us all off. There are plenty of stories out there...Adam/DrDrew named several dealing with the economy...you just might have to dig a little deeper. And sure, certain murder stories absolutely DO have relevance to the market...even interviewing the families CAN be relevant, but not very often.

The news director at my last station followed this theory and he shot down a lot of story ideas becuase of a lack of relevance to the market. Mind you, these were stories the other stations did without flinching. Our slow and steady path had taken that station from a distant 3rd to now actually vying for number one at 5 and 6 I believe which is just amazing knowing where we were when I started there back in 2003! This happened basically within the last 5-6 years. When you give people a product that they actually want, they will reward you in the long run.

[TVMattNYC]

And sorry, but from his comments, by now I've got some real doubts about Matt's connection to our industry.


OMG! Sultan is *doubting* my connection to our industry!

How ever will I get through the day??

[Sultanosurf]

what did I say that was a put-down?

...
if things are going so well, why do viewership levels keep going down?

To me the put-down was the part about 'If you're really honest.' Hey, truth and factual accuracy is an important priority to me every day. I've worked in some places, notably most recently, where it was astonishing how little being right mattered, but for most of us it's a badge of honor.

No, whether you work in the business doesn't affect whether you opinion matters, but it does add context when you say you hated it. More germane is which stations you're watching now, because I don't know many news professionals that aren't considering current conditions as grave as any time in our careers. We're fighting to stay in business.

Viewer levels are going down for a variety of reasons, not all due to content. There are just tons of alternatives now. But the product we air does need to be appealing. And I'd agree there could be different approaches, but also know that most people go in every day trying to craft shows that have answers for viewers looking for jobs, information on schools, government, etc. And we also include the crime and fires, etc, because they still draw eyes, despite whether you or TAFKA think they're a turnoff.

Car chases are probably another good example here. Jesus, there's nothing worse in the world than anchoring a car chase. Honest, what do you say after 20 minutes? But people love to watch 'em, it always has that unscripted strange turn with the ending, and so we air 'em. Crime, fires, and the victim families interviews are kind of like the same thing. Some people do them well, others don't. It's still part of who we are, and although you folks offered some ideas on alternatives, do you really think people want a seismic shift to a half-hour of investigative stories? Or city council or school board meetings or health reports?

[TVMattNYC]

do you really think people want a seismic shift to a half-hour of investigative stories? Or city council or school board meetings or health reports?

Yes.

(extra characters here because "Yes." was too short of a response)

[adam & doctor drew]

do you really think people want a seismic shift to a half-hour of investigative stories? Or city council or school board meetings or health reports?

the plummeting viewership numbers would suggest to me that they want something else, yes.

again, if the current local news formula you're defending is so great, why are you "fighting to stay in business"?

[csusandman]

Viewer levels are going down for a variety of reasons, not all due to content. There are just tons of alternatives now. But the product we air does need to be appealing. And I'd agree there could be different approaches, but also know that most people go in every day trying to craft shows that have answers for viewers looking for jobs, information on schools, government, etc. And we also include the crime and fires, etc, because they still draw eyes, despite whether you or TAFKA think they're a turnoff.

See?! That's what I was trying to say. He just... said it better!

Car chases are probably another good example here. Jesus, there's nothing worse in the world than anchoring a car chase. Honest, what do you say after 20 minutes? But people love to watch 'em, it always has that unscripted strange turn with the ending, and so we air 'em. Crime, fires, and the victim families interviews are kind of like the same thing. Some people do them well, others don't. It's still part of who we are, and although you folks offered some ideas on alternatives, do you really think people want a seismic shift to a half-hour of investigative stories? Or city council or school board meetings or health reports?

Believe it or not, but there are those out there that are sick of the type of news that YOU wanna see. They don't wanna hear any more about the economy, or the job losses, or the auto industry. People may want the in-depth investigative pieces but it's not that ridiculous to think that they also want the water-cooler stories as well; stories that don't really require a lot of thought. There just needs to be a time and a place for those... like the morning shows!

As said before, there are those whose job it is to craft the newscast in such a way that, at the end of the show, it has drawn the greatest number of people to watch because they've been affected by one story or another during that newscast.

Don't take this personally (beucase I say this to a bunch of other people who call in and ***** about what we're airing!) but if you don't like what's on the news... change the channel! I'm sure there are other shows out there in TV-land who air just what you're looking for.

[TVMattNYC]

Don't take this personally (beucase I say this to a bunch of other people who call in and ***** about what we're airing!) but if you don't like what's on the news... change the channel! I'm sure there are other shows out there in TV-land who air just what you're looking for.

Um ... I think the whole point of this debate ... since we're all industry INSIDERS ... is that too many people ARE changing the channel.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, NYC Street is one I trust as an insider.

It'd be interesting to get his take on the progression of thoughts here, if he hasn't abandoned his own thread.

I'll buy you a cup of coffee...

[News Is Broken]

anything that affects a large number of people.
right now, anything in the jobs/layoffs/financial planning/re-training yourself for a new career area would be useful to viewers, I assume.


Oh, haven't you heard? The media is to blame for the severity of the economic crisis. You see, they've been blowing it all out of proportion and sabotaged the stock market with their incessant doom and gloomery. :rolleyes:

Matt's right. Just cancel the news. Someone will call you if there's anything you need to know.

[adam & doctor drew]

Matt's right. Just cancel the news. Someone will call you if there's anything you need to know.

maybe that can be some struggling station's news strategy: no shows, just send alerts to people's phones or email accounts when there's news.

[NYC Street]

Well, NYC Street is one I trust as an insider.

It'd be interesting to get his take on the progression of thoughts here, if he hasn't abandoned his own thread.

I'll buy you a cup of coffee...

Thanks, Sultan--

I've been offline for a few days, buried in a couple of projects. But I was interested to see the progression - while it's strayed from where I thought it would go, it's gone to some interesting and good places.

My thoughts:

1. Radio reporters here often use cameras, because radio stations are getting into the television business, via the web. For the most part it's not good television, but it's one more level of competition (ironically, from our own corporate masters...)

2. My technique in dealing with the "go interview the family of the dead guy" assignment is to try to be the first to arrive. If I can, I leave my shooter a respectful distance away, walk over alone and introduce myself. After extending condolences, I try to explain that there will be a lot of people interested in what happened, why, how, etc., (depending on who got killed and why) and that we don't want to bother them in a time of grief, but that if someone from the family would like to talk to us/explain/whatever, we're here - that we won't bother them, but if they want to talk/tell their side of it, we're available.

It doesn't always work, and it doesn't ever work if you're not able to be one of if not the first...but if you get the lines out, your odds of getting something beyond the stock, crying mom wailing, "He was a good boy!" go way up. But I'm right there with SigSauer - there needs to be enough of a story to produce a reason to go see the family. It can't just be a routine traffic accident...

3. 2:30 is right - getting pictures isn't the same as getting stories. Too few of our bosses understand it. Actually, more of them probably understand it than admit it.

4. Produce brings up a really interesting point and problem regarding demographics. The question we all need to consider is how to balance trying to keep the audience that's already watching after Oprah with bringing in new viewers who want some news.

Story choice and tone would seem to me to be critical choices. Think the difference between panic inducing "Your makeup could kill you!" and "Tough choices about cuts for city schools." It's probably important if there's some newly discovered danger in mascara, and it's certainly important if your public schools are suffering because tax revenues are down.

But how we play and tease those stories makes a big difference in the way the audience thinks of us. Do they end up respecting us or thinking we're the television version of the Weekly World News?

Believe it or not, but there are those out there that are sick of the type of news that YOU wanna see. They don't wanna hear any more about the economy, or the job losses, or the auto industry. People may want the in-depth investigative pieces but it's not that ridiculous to think that they also want the water-cooler stories as well; stories that don't really require a lot of thought. There just needs to be a time and a place for those... like the morning shows!

Over the years we've tried to be all things to all people, and have ended up being almost nothing to all people. But csusandman makes a point that we have to be market driven.

Not everyone can be 60 Minutes, but I think they've shown that there's still a big market for interesting stories which are told and produced well by reporters who are trusted, rather than viewed as caricatures.

Which takes me back to Joyella, one man bands and all the other shortcuts we've been using to try to fool the audience into thinking we're still covering news rather than packaging it. I don't think the shortcuts are taking us where the market wants us to go - and I think not listening to the market (in our case the audience) is costing us long term, even if it produces the kind of incremental cost cutting that makes the bean counters happy.

[Sultanosurf]

Always good to hear from you. Enjoy your macchiato, Joe...