This Should Scare You, at least a little

[NYC Street]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/759907.html

Read the comments below the Charlotte Observer story about a couple of local police officers plainly exceeded their authority and assaulted a news crew that was just doing its job.

While some are intelligent, the number supporting the plainly unlawful action of the police says to me that we aren't making the case very well that what journalists do is important, and that government should not control the flow of information.

[Diplomat]

Cops were clearly out of line. Like the news director, I hope it's just an isolated thing. The officers responsible should be publicly identified and denounced. Why not take the cost of the camera out of the offending officer's salary?

[Clever Login Name]

You will never, ever "make your case" to a substantial number of the public about the rights of journalists ... every single opinion poll puts news reporters at or near the level of used car salesmen when it comes to respectable professions. Nothing is ever going to change that.

I encountered this kind of situation countless times in my career ... and how I handled it depended on the situation. Some times I would agree to hold off a minute or two while they got the more grisly elements (elements which we never could have shown on t-v anyway) covered ... other times I told police if they didn't want me to shoot it, it was their job to cover it up. The times I was more cooperative helped me get greater access then and at future scenes ... sometimes you just gotta play the game.

That said, it doesn't sound like these photogs did anything wrong.

[News Is Broken]

Clever has it exactly right. It's a fatal. It's not going anywhere. FOR HOURS.

I used to love it when the breathless deskies would call me up and say "Get to so-and-so right now, a fatal just happened!" Oh yay, let's camp out at the nightly drunk driver car crash for the next six hours. :rolleyes: I think not.

Sure enough, I'd spend the next five hours covering the rest of the overnight stuff (fires, chases, shootings, random acts of criminal dumbness, etc) then double back to the car wreck that's STILL THERE, get my shots and wait a few minutes for the PIO who JUST NOW SHOWED UP to give the sound bite before heading into the station with a STACK of tapes instead of just one.

Having said that, I agree that the cops crossed the line but I can see where they're coming from too. Could've been a friend or family member of theirs in that car.

Happened to me once - rolled up on a nasty MVA with extrication just in time to hear the medics onscene declare a good friend of mine dead. Kinda effed up the rest of the shift, and I recall that I said some stuff to the other photogs that wasn't very nice.

They're human. They screw up sometimes. Doesn't mean they've declared martial law in Charlotte or become a police state, people. The city should just fix the camera, write up the cop who screwed up, and move on.

[Spike]

Cops were clearly out of line.

Were you there? Did you witness it?

The cop probably was out of line, but who can really be sure without seeing the video? All we have is the news director's version of the story.

And why hasn't the video been published? I don't buy the ND's excuse that they haven't shown it because they haven't given a copy to the police. That doesn't really make any sense. What's on that tape that the ND doesn't want people to see?

And why is this just now being reported, when it happened last week?

I'm not inclined to believe the cops either, but something about this story smells bad.

[News Is Broken]

I'm not inclined to believe the cops either, but something about this story smells bad.

If it's anything like some of the fatals I've been on, they might have gotten a little talking to about some of the gallows humor that we photogs tend to share while standing around sucking down cancer sticks and waiting for sound.

Not that I've ever participated in any of that, or had a cop give me the "that's someone's mother over there" speech of course. :whistle:

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Not that I've ever participated in any of that, or had a cop give me the "that's someone's mother over there" speech of course. :whistle:

Was that a mama joke in disguise??

[News Is Broken]

Was that a mama joke in disguise??

No but remember one thing: In Soviet Russia, mother screws YOU!

[Diplomat]

Were you there? Did you witness it?

The cop probably was out of line, but who can really be sure without seeing the video? All we have is the news director's version of the story.

And why hasn't the video been published? I don't buy the ND's excuse that they haven't shown it because they haven't given a copy to the police. That doesn't really make any sense. What's on that tape that the ND doesn't want people to see?

And why is this just now being reported, when it happened last week?

I'm not inclined to believe the cops either, but something about this story smells bad.

Read the article--and you will know they were out of line. NYC is right. They were out of line.

Thanks for a little more confirmation.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

You know, it's not a bad way to get a camera repaired that has been put on the backburner by the fix-it crew at the station!
We've got a couple that could surrrrre use new view finders, microphones, lens, cases, lights......:D

[Spike]

Read the article--and you will know they were out of line. NYC is right. They were out of line.

I did read the article. I see where the news director tells his corporation's official version what happened. I don't see the other side of the story. Hell, I don't even see the photographer's version of the story, only a version given by someone who wasn't even there.

I also don't see any links to the video (where people can make up their own minds), since the ND is sitting on it as if the station has something to hide. Normally in these cop confrontations the station is very quick to put the video out, either airing it on the station or putting it on the station's website. What's on the video that the ND doesn't want us to see?

I'm not saying the cops weren't out of line. I'm just saying that jumping to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence given so far seems very premature.

Something about this story really does smell bad. Jumping to conclusions might get the stink on you.

[News Is Broken]

Jumping to conclusions might get the stink on you.

Plus it's just a lame assed game in general.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/70384439_ba1fd5b9de.jpg

[Diplomat]

Were you there? Did you witness it?

The cop probably was out of line, but who can really be sure without seeing the video? All we have is the news director's version of the story.

And why hasn't the video been published? I don't buy the ND's excuse that they haven't shown it because they haven't given a copy to the police. That doesn't really make any sense. What's on that tape that the ND doesn't want people to see?

And why is this just now being reported, when it happened last week?

I'm not inclined to believe the cops either, but something about this story smells bad.

I am willing to take that chance. NYC has good instincts in this arena and I trust him.

Something tells me you know much more about various kinds of stink than you do about all the other areas of expertise you claim.

[The Thrill]

I did read the article. I see where the news director tells his corporation's official version what happened. I don't see the other side of the story. Hell, I don't even see the photographer's version of the story, only a version given by someone who wasn't even there.

I also don't see any links to the video (where people can make up their own minds), since the ND is sitting on it as if the station has something to hide. Normally in these cop confrontations the station is very quick to put the video out, either airing it on the station or putting it on the station's website. What's on the video that the ND doesn't want us to see?

I'm not saying the cops weren't out of line. I'm just saying that jumping to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence given so far seems very premature.

Something about this story really does smell bad. Jumping to conclusions might get the stink on you.

Or maybe station lawyers are just sitting on it for now, knowing it'll be evidence in some kind of proceeding, and are playing it safe.

Maybe.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

I guess the biggest question I have is: Why was one photog singled out for this treatment and the other was not?
And why didn't the unaffected photog roll on the disturbance. Nice way to have your brother's back. Not.

[News Is Broken]

And why didn't the unaffected photog roll on the disturbance. Nice way to have your brother's back. Not.

Speaking from personal experience, let's just say that sometimes your fellow "brother photog" needs to learn a lesson. Just because you're sharing my scene doesn't necessarily make you my buddy - especially if you're being an ass and screwing things up for all of us on a nightly basis. It happens.

[Spike]

I guess the biggest question I have is: Why was one photog singled out for this treatment and the other was not?
And why didn't the unaffected photog roll on the disturbance.

So many questions unanswered, yet Dippy is ready to put a halo on the photog without the slightest idea what actually happened. The ND's story just doesn't make much sense without the video.

[NYC Street]

My point wasn't so much that the police officer acted improperly - which seems plain - but that those who were commenting on the newspaper story - the net equivalent of MOS - seemed heavily anti-reporter.

Anyone who has worked the streets - particularly on the police beat - has had many a run in with overzealous cops...and probably an equal number (or more) where the reporter or photog has been pushing the envelope and got called on it. Knowing how to diffuse such a confrontation is an important skill, but it's not always possible.

Asking for a supervisor is always a first line of defense. If the shot is important, as a reporter I'll try to put myself between the photog and the source of trouble, be it cop, relative, whomever, and try to let the photog get the video while I take the heat and try to deflect it.

But the larger question of the public not understanding why it's important for us to do our jobs without undue interference is something I find more than troubling. Sure, this particular instance was some dumb fatal, and maybe it was one of the cops' relatives who either caused it or was lying dead in the street.

But I'm reminded of a construction site collapse that killed half a dozen workers quite a few years back, in a town about 50 miles north of New York City. I don't care if one of the cops' brothers was the guy who caused the collapse - we had a job to do, and when police officers tried to prevent it, we knew we were going to work around it - we had to. We moved to a high shot.

The police helped the construction crews put up sheets blocking the entire site from the direction of the street. We called in the choppers.

We took a lot of heat from the locals. But a few days later the stories broke about the improper construction techniques and the inspectors who hadn't found the problems. Even before that my conscience was clear.

My question is - why can't we do a better job of explaining why we're doing what we're doing. And/or why can't they understand what we're saying?

[Spike]

My question is - why can't we do a better job of explaining why we're doing what we're doing. And/or why can't they understand what we're saying?

Because there are too many assclowns running around playing reporter and mucking it up for everyone else. Even if you have a hundred good reporters on the street, it only takes one idiot on the air trying to make scandal out of nothing or bending the facts to make the story seem more juicy to ruin it for the rest.

Viewers have seen too many of these boneheads on the air and now view all journalists with suspicion. They don't know who they can trust. They don't know when they can trust them. Just as it's no surprise to see journalists here automatically assume based on previous experience that the cop was out of line without even seeing any supporting evidence, is it really a surprise to you that viewers wouldn't do the same with regard to their previous experience with lying or sensationalizing reporters?

[Diplomat]

NYC--you have an excellent point about the comments. My take on it is that a lot of people are taught to respect and defer to authority no matter what--and that mentality has conditioned them to take the side of the police. Also, the arrogant, overbearing reporters and paparazzi in our ranks don't help any, either. Those factors make it hard for the rest of us who try to keep it legit. That said, when a cop is out of line, they must be held accountable, either then or later.

[Spike]

That said, when a cop is out of line...

Which we still can't be sure about in this case.

[Diplomat]

Which we still can't be sure about in this case.

More confirmation. Thanks.

[Spike]

More confirmation.

What the hell does that even mean?

[Diplomat]

What the hell does that even mean?

You'll find out eventually.

[Spike]

You'll find out eventually.

What the hell does that even mean?

Do you think it makes you sound less ridiculous to talk nonsense?

[Diplomat]

What the hell does that even mean?

Do you think it makes you sound less ridiculous to talk nonsense?

I'm not talking nonsense. I know what it means and it will be explained in due time. Talking nonsense is your department, with your outlandish claims to have studied every subject under the sun and professing yourself as an expert in areas you demonstrate that you know little about.

[Spike]

I'm not talking nonsense. I know what it means.

Then please stop playing AF Wifey and explain it. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like you just made up some meaningless gibberish to use as a tag line.

[Diplomat]

Then please stop playing AF Wifey and explain it. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like you just made up some meaningless gibberish to use as a tag line.

Making up stuff is your department. But thank you for playing anyway.

[Spike]

Making up stuff is your department. But thank you for playing anyway.

If it's not made up, you should be able to provide some sort of explanation.

[NYC Street]

a lot of people are taught to respect and defer to authority no matter what--and that mentality has conditioned them to take the side of the police. Also, the arrogant, overbearing reporters and paparazzi in our ranks don't help any, either. Those factors make it hard for the rest of us who try to keep it legit. That said, when a cop is out of line, they must be held accountable, either then or later.

I'd certainly agree with you, Dip. Indeed, if truth be told, my instinct is usually to give the police officer the benefit of the doubt. After all, THEY'RE the good guys, at least 95% of the time, if not more. And the paparazzi/trash tv types don't help those of us who fancy ourselves "legit" reporters.

But there really isn't any way to effectively distinguish between some guy blocking Britney Spears' car, our crew chasing the mayor and the crew from the network covering Capitol Hill (if there still is one). Each has to be responsible for their own behavior - as do the cops.

Neither a press card nor a badge lets you break the law.

Ultimately, though, I think we have to figure out some sort of outreach to the public - because if we let ourselves get slimed by the miscreants among us, we're letting a long term problem fester.

[s'news]

But this is, for the most part, something we shouldn't be covering.

[Spike]

But this is, for the most part, something we shouldn't be covering.

Apparently they didn't. I couldn't find any reference to the wreck on their website.

[NYC Street]

But this is, for the most part, something we shouldn't be covering.

It's not for the police (or any other government agency) to determine what we should be covering, or how we should be covering it.

[The Mockingbird]

It's not for the police (or any other government agency) to determine what we should be covering, or how we should be covering it.

But it is for the police (or any other government agency) to determine when it should restrict access to a particular location for safety, security, or investigative reasons.

[NYC Street]

But it is for the police (or any other government agency) to determine when it should restrict access to a particular location for safety, security, or investigative reasons.

Within some limitations, that's correct.

It's also utterly irrelevant to the discussion here.

There was no restriction to the location - it was open to the public. There was no security or investigative concern. There was just a police officer who thought she had the authority to dictate what pictures were taken - in short, she wanted to dictate the content of the news.

I'm reminded of the week after the 9/11/01 attacks, when lower Manhattan was just getting back to normal. Former mayor Giuliani had the police put up signs banning news photography in certain areas, even though they were open to the public and even though non-news photography was unimpeded. It was one of perhaps a dozen incidents during his administration in which he attempted to impose unconstitutional controls on the news media. In most he ended up losing lawsuits.

For that one there wasn't time to sue. We told the cops to a) call their supervisors, b) turn their backs, or c) arrest us - they had their choice, but that we were doing our jobs. Nobody got arrested.

That's the difference between well trained and veteran officers and some overzealous twerp with a badge.

But, again, I'm not as concerned with what I hope was an atypical attempt by someone who was out of line to do something stupid as I am with the reaction from the public.

[Clever Login Name]

But this is, for the most part, something we shouldn't be covering.

Why? .

[Spike]

There was no restriction to the location - it was open to the public.

I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article you posted. Isn't that an assumption on your part?

There was no security or investigative concern.

That's according to the news director, who wasn't even at the scene. We have yet to hear or see what actually happened, since the ND won't release the tape. I wonder why not?

There was just a police officer who thought she had the authority to dictate what pictures were taken - in short, she wanted to dictate the content of the news.

Possible, but again that's according to the ND, who wasn't there and won't release the tape to let us judge for ourselves.

I'm reminded of the week after the 9/11/01 attacks...

All of which was well-documented by multiple sources so that everybody knew what was happening. That's in complete contrast with this situation, where you and Dippy are both making a lot of assumptions about what happened without actually having seen the tape.

The cop was probably out of line. They usually are in these situations.

But imagine a different scenario. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the car involved in the wreck had rolled down the embankment upon which the photogs had their tripods set up, and the cop told them to move because they really were standing in an investigation scene that hadn't been completely marked off yet. Suppose the photog refused to move and was rude about it, and at some point in the confrontation the cop mentioned the photog's lack of respect for the people who died. Suppose the ND is fixating on the cop's expression of her personal feelings in an attempt to justify what happened, when there really was a legitimate reason for the cop to ask the photogs to move, and he's now refusing to release the tape because he knows it will make his version of the story sound ridiculous.

That entire scenario fits with the facts in that article. Like I said, you and Dippy are making a lot of big assumptions about what actually happened, based on the word of one guy who wasn't there and who refuses to release the tape. If anybody else had a tape like that and refused to release it, you'd be all over that thinking he had something to hide. Yet here you ignore it and just assume he's telling the truth because he's allegedly a journalist, part of your club.

Gee, that sounds a lot like the way the cops operate.

[Diplomat]

It's not for the police (or any other government agency) to determine what we should be covering, or how we should be covering it.

Amen.

[s'news]

It's not for the police (or any other government agency) to determine what we should be covering, or how we should be covering it.

Of course not. My point was that the story itself -- a fatal crash on a highway! -- wasn't worth covering. I guess you have to keep the overnight photog busy with something.

And I suppose it could become newsworthy later on. But it's far more likely to end up as a wasted 15 seconds on the morning news.

[News Is Broken]

Of course not. My point was that the story itself -- a fatal crash on a highway! -- wasn't worth covering. I guess you have to keep the overnight photog busy with something.

And I suppose it could become newsworthy later on. But it's far more likely to end up as a wasted 15 seconds on the morning news.

I used to cover lots of these. The short answer is: It depends. The longer answer is: what's the hook? Was the driver running from the cops? Hit by a guy that was running from the cops? Drunk? Stoned? High? Receiving oral favors at the time of the crash? A famous celebrity? A public official? A wanted fugitive?

Also, how many victims? Any kids? Pregnant ladies? Nuns in a bus? Did the car fly off the freeway and land on someone's roof?

All sorts of things can turn a ho-hum fatal ax into "news", and often times the only way to find out is to go check 'em out. But there's no rush to get there unless you can get there in time to get extrication vids of the living, and no need to roll on the uncovered bodies of the dearly departed.

[s'news]

Oh it's crap.

[Spike]

Oh it's crap.

It's usually crap.

It's that one time in a thousand when it's not crap that supports the coverage. If the dead person in that car had been the mayor's wife, then it wouldn't be crap. If you don't bother to check it out, then the next day everyone is wondering why you didn't cover the death of the mayor's wife or why you're playing catch-up while everyone else has the story.

[News Is Broken]

Oh it's crap.

See Spike's reply. You cover it just in case, and usually it ends up on the air regardless because either nothing else happened and you need to fill the newshole or it's still in the way when all the normal people are headed to work. Sure it's crap, but it's cool crap. You still slow down to look and go "damn, sucks to be them."

;)

[Spike]

You cover it just in case, and usually it ends up on the air regardless...

That's where the system fails. Just because you send a photog to check something out doesn't mean it has to result in something on the air.

The way it should work is that you send a photog to check it out. Then, when he calls back and says, "This is crap," you say, "Okay, come on back." What happens instead is that some idiot producer will go ahead and put it in her rundown before ever hearing from the photog, then plan around it as if it's already a confirmed story. When the photog says, "This is crap," she says, "Well, it's already in my rundown and I can't find something to replace it now, so edit me a VOSOT anyway."

And people at home say, "Why did we just see that? That was crap!"

[ewink]

So s'news, since you ignored me in the other thread, I'll ask here.

In your perfect journalism world where you have 100% control over what the overnight photog goes to shoot, what would he shoot? What, that happens overnights, is in your opinion, worth covering?

[Another side]

That's where the system fails. Just because you send a photog to check something out doesn't mean it has to result in something on the air.

The way it should work is that you send a photog to check it out. Then, when he calls back and says, "This is crap," you say, "Okay, come on back." What happens instead is that some idiot producer will go ahead and put it in her rundown before ever hearing from the photog, then plan around it as if it's already a confirmed story. When the photog says, "This is crap," she says, "Well, it's already in my rundown and I can't find something to replace it now, so edit me a VOSOT anyway."

And people at home say, "Why did we just see that? That was crap!"

A couple of thoughts:

It doesn't become "crap" to the viewer until the identity is known, if then.

If a producer needs it for the rundown, then it needs to be shot. The only other option if probably a national story of equally questionable value and local is better than national on the local news.

Photographers are paid to shoot video, not make editorial decisions. Their input and opinions can sometimes be important but -- as they rightfully argue to the cops in instances such as this one -- they've "got a job to do."

As far as Street's larger question ... I don't believe the problem lies in the VOSOTs of the dead or other minor stories.

It's in the sometimes unseemly tactics we use to get the story we think we need -- chasing someone through the airport and waving a mic in their face, for instance.

It's in the quotes we "take out of context" that inflames one side/one family/ one relative or the other ... and we will likely inflame the spared side in a similar way in an upcoming broadcast.

It the weather forecast that says there's a 30 percent chance of rain today, while the viewer sees the downpour out his living room window.

It's the broadcast of unimportant, irrelevant, minute details of people's personal lives that make humble viewers cringe ... and hit the remote because they just don't want to hear anymore.

There are at least two audiences to every story and it seems, at one time or another, we become slovish cads to both.

And sometimes, there's nothing we can do about it ... that's just how it works.

[Another side]

So s'news, since you ignored me in the other thread, I'll ask here.

In your perfect journalism world where you have 100% control over what the overnight photog goes to shoot, what would he shoot? What, that happens overnights, is in your opinion, worth covering?

I would like to hear the answer to this, too.

[Consider This]

If a producer needs it for the rundown, then it needs to be shot.

You have unintentionally made Spike's point for him. The very problem is that nothing more than the act of sending someone to check something out earns it a place in the rundown.

It doesn't become "crap" to the viewer until the identity is known, if then.

Yes, but 99% of the time it will be crap and if the producer decides it is a story before the identity is known, you're going to show the viewer crap 99% of the time. After that, your chances are 99% that the viewer won't stay around for number 100.

Photographers are paid to shoot video, not make editorial decisions.

When you send them solo to check something out, that's exactly what you are asking them to do. They make editorial decisions when choosing whom to interview and what to shoot. And their judgment about a story's validity from their presence on site sounds more trustworthy to me than someone at a desk announcing, "it has to be a story -- it's already in the rundown."

[s'news]

So s'news, since you ignored me in the other thread, I'll ask here.

In your perfect journalism world where you have 100% control over what the overnight photog goes to shoot, what would he shoot? What, that happens overnights, is in your opinion, worth covering?

I'm sorry. I didn't think I had ignored you. I thought my opinion that it just isn't newsworthy answered your earlier question. No harm and no foul, I hope.

I also allowed somewhere that in some cases it might turn out to be newsworthy. But far more often than not, it's crap. And it all too often makes air because it was shot, a breakdown in news judgement where I'm in agreement with Spike.

I also allowed somewhere in here that I guess you have to have the photog shooting something overnight.

And now there's a burning warehouse on the edge of downtown, in that area where nobody lives. Nobody will be hurt in the fire. It's only newsworthiness is that our tax dollars were spent to put it out. But get the photog over there to "check it out."

And then we'll air the video because, hey, flames at night!

[Clever Login Name]

I understand what you're saying, but what's the threshold, then? How many people does something have to affect for it to be newsworthy? 5? 10? 100? More? What if those affected don't even watch your news ... how do you justify it then?

[east coast producer]

The solution is to fire everyone, cancel the news and air informercials. There. Happy?

[Spike]

And then we'll air the video because, hey, flames at night!

I'll argue with you when it comes to fire.

Fire gets aired because people have a natural fascination with it. It doesn't matter if the building was empty and nobody was really affected. The fact that it's a fire makes people want to stare at it, much more so than a car wreck. People are interested in fire in large part simply because it's fire.

It also represents a physical, enduring change in their landscape. When a building burns, people like to know about it, because it changes the landmarks in their world. Again, it doesn't matter that the building hasn't been used in 20 years. The next day people talk to each other and say, "Hey, you know that old warehouse we used to drive by on the way to the airport? That place burned down!" Now the mental map each one of them has of his city is changed. And that's newsworthy.

A kitchen fire that didn't destroy the structure and didn't show much flame? Not so much.

[ewink]

I'm sorry. I didn't think I had ignored you. I thought my opinion that it just isn't newsworthy answered your earlier question. No harm and no foul, I hope.
No, you're cool. I just get really riled up when I specifically ask someone something and I don't even get a 'sod off.' :P To be fair I did not read the whole thread, so apologies from me too.

I also allowed somewhere that in some cases it might turn out to be newsworthy. But far more often than not, it's crap. And it all too often makes air because it was shot, a breakdown in news judgement where I'm in agreement with Spike.

I also allowed somewhere in here that I guess you have to have the photog shooting something overnight.

And now there's a burning warehouse on the edge of downtown, in that area where nobody lives. Nobody will be hurt in the fire. It's only newsworthiness is that our tax dollars were spent to put it out. But get the photog over there to "check it out."

And then we'll air the video because, hey, flames at night!
TBH all of that is all well and good, flames at night are cool, but that's voyeurism, not journalism; the same with the car wreck. It seems like you are allowing yourself to have a double standard. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just that you seemed pretty quick to snap on the news administrators for sending someone to cover some stupid fatal car wreck to begin with.

[ewink]

I understand what you're saying, but what's the threshold, then? How many people does something have to affect for it to be newsworthy? 5? 10? 100? More? What if those affected don't even watch your news ... how do you justify it then?
Heh... most of the stuff I went on when I was overnighting in Vegas, homicides included, I could probably count the number of people affected on one hand. The victim and his family.

The station would do a follow up and the neighbors would claim they were affected by the gangs as well, but they of course wouldn't cooperate with the police, so they gangs stayed, so as far as I was concerned they were not negatively affected and didn't include them in my count. So homicides wouldn't pass the 10 count.

Stand offs would, but honestly, do the people watching care? The people who were evacuated already know, and they're in a police bus.

[east coast producer]

Jesus Christ. Fatal car wrecks are news. Now shut the (*&$ up already children.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Fatal car wrecks are news.

And they get an incredible amount of hits on the internet site.
Usually more than other stories.
I didn't believe it until I saw the counts.
People look at the wrecks on web/tv for the same reason they stop and rubberneck at scenes.

[Spike]

And they get an incredible amount of hits on the internet site.
Usually more than other stories.

That's because of all the people seeing other wrecks while they're out and wondering what happened, so when they get home they look on the website saying, "No, that's not it. Not that one either. Nope, not that one. I guess it wasn't anything after all."

[Ralphie the buffalo]

That may be so, but I was very surprised when I saw the number of hits traffic fatals get.

[s'news]

Well, as a guy said to me many years ago, it's hard to teach newsworthiness. I didn't like him much, by the way.

But I've had some time to reflect on this topic. Much of this time was spent while listening to accordions, but that's another story.

Here's what I know, or at least think I know. Once a year, one of those overnight fatal wrecks will have some element of news to it. And you'll be happy to have the video if you are the reporter trying to do something about it the next day. And once every two or three years (or more) the story will involve some bigtime bigshot, and all in newsland will be happy about the video.

But that video isn't new. It's been seen a thousand or more times before. We all know what a wreck looks like. Many slow down in traffic to look, but much of that is because people want to see what it was that was slowing things down.

So the visual element that many think is so wonderful is actually boring. It's not relevant to me. And if I see it, I'm ready to click to something else.

And yet we shoot them all the time and all too often put them on the air.

Oh they're crap.

The accordions, by the way, drew a big crowd at Houston's Miller Outdoor Theatre. The Accordion Kings Show is an annual event. Young up-and-coming players are in a contest at the start. Pros take over from there. A great time is had by all. Man, some of them do some amazing things and make some amazing music. Did I mention that it drew a big crowd?

No media attended that I could see. Someone should have called in a stray highway fatal to get them there.

[s'news]

Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just that you seemed pretty quick to snap on the news administrators for sending someone to cover some stupid fatal car wreck to begin with.

I've thought again. I've mentioned that accordions were involved. Anyway, I think it's stupid. I say that in only the friendliest way. We cover too much crap.

[s'news]

Jesus Christ. Fatal car wrecks are news. Now shut the (*&$ up already children.

No. They are news only in the sense that they happen all the time. If you wish to discuss with me a story about wrecks in the plural sense -- and what might be happening in that regard -- you've got something.

If you have one fatal car wreck and you make it news, it's crap.

[s'news]

The solution is to fire everyone, cancel the news and air informercials. There. Happy?

That's actually better than covering a fatal car wreck on the news. In fact, it may be the natural result of covering fatal car wrecks on the news.

[s'news]

Fire gets aired because people have a natural fascination with it.

People have a natural fascination with boobs. Please show more boobs.

The boobs aren't necessarily newsworthy, but I'll live with that.

Now if you've got video of boobs on fire...

[s'news]

I understand what you're saying, but what's the threshold, then? How many people does something have to affect for it to be newsworthy? 5? 10? 100? More? What if those affected don't even watch your news ... how do you justify it then?

I know the threshold when I see it. And a fatal wreck isn't even close to it.


Wait, wait. (Snarky, comedic response coming. Not meaning to be mean. Just having fun. Play along.) It's newsworthy when it affects 352 people in a small market, 527 in a medium market and 3,042 in a major market. That's unless the major market is Dallas and Tony Romo is involved, then the numbers vary dramatically in both directions depending on your interest in the Cowboys.

[Another side]

Heh... most of the stuff I went on when I was overnighting in Vegas, homicides included, I could probably count the number of people affected on one hand. The victim and his family.

The station would do a follow up and the neighbors would claim they were affected by the gangs as well, but they of course wouldn't cooperate with the police, so they gangs stayed, so as far as I was concerned they were not negatively affected and didn't include them in my count. So homicides wouldn't pass the 10 count.

Stand offs would, but honestly, do the people watching care? The people who were evacuated already know, and they're in a police bus.

People care about crime in their communities. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if it's a run-of-the-mill Saturday night crack-house shooting, or a stabbing from a love-triagle gone bad among otherwise rational folks.

These stories lead to discussions about cops, judges, prosecutors, jail capacities, restitution, victim services, outreach programs, gang influence, gun control, curfews, prison over-crowding and, of course, crime-rates.

It doesn't matter if it's on TV, in the newspaper or (as someone else pointed out on this thread or another) on a website -- the public pays attention to crime stories.

And viewers absolutely love the inherent mystereies of car chases and standoffs. They want to know how it ends, when it ends, and who won and who lost. They are local news gold.

[Another side]

No. They are news only in the sense that they happen all the time. If you wish to discuss with me a story about wrecks in the plural sense -- and what might be happening in that regard -- you've got something.

If you have one fatal car wreck and you make it news, it's crap.

Everyone drives. Most people care about what happens to other people, whether they know them or whether they don't.

Fatals are NOT crap. They're news.

[Another side]

I'll argue with you when it comes to fire.

Fire gets aired because people have a natural fascination with it. It doesn't matter if the building was empty and nobody was really affected. The fact that it's a fire makes people want to stare at it, much more so than a car wreck. People are interested in fire in large part simply because it's fire.

Dear Abby said it this way: When you're being raped yell "FIRE!"

Because everyone wants to go see a fire, but no one wants to go see a rape.

[SamG]

s'news... couldn't you make the same argument of most "spot" news? Why are bank robberies "news"? Guy comes in, says he has a weapon, got away with an undisclosed amount of cash. Police are still searching for him. There. I just wrote the copy for your next two dozen bank robberies. But why are they "news"?

As far as the fatal car wreck, often it's the story behind the wreck. How many of you have had soon-to-be graduates killed in a wreck the week or so before graduation? Aside from the yearbook pictures and the interviews with classmates, the video from the torn up car up against a tree is compelling.

What if the wreck is on the interstate and closes all lanes of traffic forcing detours? Does *THAT* make it news? Or do you just use video of the backed up traffic and not the wreck itself?

s'news... you're now an ND. Would you put a moratorium on car wrecks (much less fatals)?

[Another side]

You have unintentionally made Spike's point for him. The very problem is that nothing more than the act of sending someone to check something out earns it a place in the rundown. Oh, I agree with Spike's point. But to agree with yours, you'd have to take it to the inth degree.

I agree some producers might put it in the rundown, unseen, and, probably, even against the counsel of the photog. But not most of them. And those that do likely knew they needed something when the photog went out ... it was Sunday ... and that's all they had. I'm not defending the practice, other than to say sometimes it happens and I understand why.

But if we're talking about strictly fatals, then, yes, it's news and the producer SHOULD stick it in.


[Yes, but 99% of the time it will be crap and if the producer decides it is a story before the identity is known, you're going to show the viewer crap 99% of the time. After that, your chances are 99% that the viewer won't stay around for number 100.

You lost me on the arithmetic, but I'd really be interested in any proof that people grab their remotes because they were ticked off the local news included a local wreck/fatal in its show. I don't believe the evidence exists ... or that viewers do it.



When you send them solo to check something out, that's exactly what you are asking them to do. They make editorial decisions when choosing whom to interview and what to shoot. And their judgment about a story's validity from their presence on site sounds more trustworthy to me than someone at a desk announcing, "it has to be a story -- it's already in the rundown."

All (mostly)true. But it's not their decision, and there's a reason for that: they've probably been to more fatals than any of the station's viewers, and as with most things, familiarity breeds contempt. They become (understandably so) ho-hum assignments that are "crap" as evidenced by the remarks on this thread ... from photographers.

So, as a producer, would I put all my trust in the photog's assessment? No, of course not. I want to see the video, and I'll be watching the competition to see what they got. I'll want to know our photog gave it his best shot.

[Consider This]

s'news... couldn't you make the same argument of most "spot" news? Why are bank robberies "news"?

Mostly because they're stories you don't even have to shoot. Cameras inside the bank capture the crime. Copy-and-paste the script from the last time and -- there you go -- 30 seconds filled.

[Another side]

No. It's because they involve criminals, guns, other people's money, and cops. And a hefty potential for violence, chases, injury and/or death.

I don't mean this as criticism, because it's happened before to photogss I've known and admired ... but you're really starting to sound a little too out-of-touch with your audience to be much good as a photog. If you truly don't understand why you're shooting something, you probably shouldn't have been given the assignment.

[s'news]

s'news... couldn't you make the same argument of most "spot" news? Why are bank robberies "news"?

s'news... you're now an ND. Would you put a moratorium on car wrecks (much less fatals)?

On the bank robberies, Another Side spoke well to that in his post just north of here. They also don't happen on practically a daily basis.

A mere car wreck and nobody even died in it? I wouldn't want that on my newscasts if I were an ND. And even a fatal would need an unusual and/or extremely compelling issue to make it news to me.

[s'news]

Everyone drives. Most people care about what happens to other people, whether they know them or whether they don't.


Everyone knows people who have died. Most people care about what happens to other people, whether they know them or whether they don't.

Therefore, we should cover every death. Why just limit ourselves to fatal accidents involving motor vehicles?

[Spike]

Fatals are NOT crap. They're news.

News and crap are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes a story is both.

I was thinking about this, and what made a lot of this uncomfortable to cover when I was in television wasn't a lack of newsworthiness, but the way we covered it. With the consultants' emphasis placed on spot news, crime stories that really deserved a VO got a package and a live shot in each show. It's not that these stories are covered that's the problem. It's that teevee people tend to overdo it.

[Rambunctious]

The reason our argument doesn't translate is because it is complete BS.

We may want to think we are but we are not doing our jobs for the greater good of society anymore. Informing the viewer of any beneficial information has become an accidental by product of what we do ever day.

The construction story seems like a great example on the surface but let me ask you... Did an investigative reporter uncover the information or did a govt. agency uncover the problems and release it to the media in a press release? If they hadn't blocked the view would any of the stations have seriously pursued the issue with real man hours and dedication?

Everyday our managers are making decisions based on attracting viewers not helping them. We want them to watch and they have learned that sound, thought provoking, informative information can not compete with pot banging. It especially can't compete given the money, man power and time they are willing to throw at it.

A car fatal yields almost no information worth putting on the air. The same goes for almost all spot news... yet it is what dominates.

A station may have covered 12 fatal car wrecks this year and it will be nothing more than an eye popping head line. An ounce of research and investigation could reveal that 10 of the 12 cars had the same brand of tires which could lead to an investigation that could save lives. No one cares though about the actual safety of the viewer. A year later a press release announcing that tires recall will be thrown away by an assignment editor because who the hell cares about a tire recall... hurry an abandoned house is on fire.

The media is like Robin Williams trying to act in dramas. He may get it right once it awhile but the majority of the time he is just a comedian begging to be taken seriously.

Of course... this is just my opinion.

[s'news]

"Pot banging." I like that. :cheers:

[Consider This]

No. It's because they involve criminals, guns, other people's money, and cops. And a hefty potential for violence, chases, injury and/or death.

Sadly, this is no longer correct. The reasons you cite that a bank robbery is news are valid. But the question for producers too often is simply, "do we have surveillance video?" Television news has become more an exercise in economy than in journalism.

I don't mean this as criticism, because it's happened before to photogss I've known and admired ... but you're really starting to sound a little too out-of-touch with your audience to be much good as a photog. If you truly don't understand why you're shooting something, you probably shouldn't have been given the assignment.

I don't know if you were talking about me but I'm not a photog. If I were a photog I would almost by definition be more in touch with the audience than the producers because I would actually LEAVE THE BUILDING sometime during the day.

Besides, in light of your earlier declaration that photogs aren't paid to make editorial decisions, how much understanding of their assignments do they need?

I should clarify that my comments earlier in the thread did not pertain specifically to fatal auto accidents. I was thinking of all manner of things photogs are sent "to check out," that as soon as they give the "10-4" on the radio, the producer has a slug in the rundown.

And it doesn't just happen on Sundays.

[east coast producer]

I don't quite understand all the hate toward producers in this thread. If the desk tells me they're sending a shooter to a multi-car fatal accident, sure I'll put it in the rundown so I can continue to build my show. It's far easier to overproduce and remove something from a newscast than it is to continually insert things all day long. If the photog finds out the multi-car fatal is actually a single car with a flat tire two markets away, then it's just the producer being lazy and her superiors not caring and being equally lazy for letting him keep it there. I can't imagine this is really that often the case, though, and I can't think of any instance when a producer I knew kept a busted story in their show.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I just get really riled up when I specifically ask someone something and I don't even get a 'sod off.'

Relax, sweetie. Have a Twinkie.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I don't quite understand all the hate toward producers in this thread.

What are you, new to the biz? Camera monkeys have always hated producers. They're jealous because producers make decisions and camera monkeys tote equipment and eat 7-Eleven burritos.

[SamG]

Sadly, this is no longer correct. The reasons you cite that a bank robbery is news are valid. But the question for producers too often is simply, "do we have surveillance video?" Television news has become more an exercise in economy than in journalism.When's the last time you've seen surveillance video WITHIN weeks, to say nothing of hours after the robbery when Joe Reporter is outside LIVE because someone presented a note that SAID they had a weapon and wanted money? Oh yea, don't forget the teller gave him the money, the guy left, and the bank has returned to business as normal.

[Spike]

When's the last time you've seen surveillance video WITHIN weeks...

That happens all the time when the police have no leads and suddenly decide that they want the help of their good friends in the media to catch the person shown on the tape.

[SamG]

That happens all the time when the police have no leads and suddenly decide that they want the help of their good friends in the media to catch the person shown on the tape.
Right. My point was you don't see those tapes the day of the robbery.

[ewink]

Right. My point was you don't see those tapes the day of the robbery.
Sure you do. I've had photogs return from the robbery with a DVD of the surv. video.

This isn't 1934.

[ewink]

It doesn't matter if it's on TV, in the newspaper or (as someone else pointed out on this thread or another) on a website -- the public pays attention to crime stories.
Yeah, when it's in their area. But I've been doing this long enough and met enough people to know that no one in the suburbs gives a rats ass that some gang-banger gunned down another gang-banger 'in cold blood' last night and that 'police need your help.'

Just like the people in the inner city really don't care about the potato bug problem of those rich crackers on the south side.

[Another side]

Everyone knows people who have died. Most people care about what happens to other people, whether they know them or whether they don't.

Therefore, we should cover every death. Why just limit ourselves to fatal accidents involving motor vehicles?

Newspapers do. But television has time restraints.

[Another side]

The reason our argument doesn't translate is because it is complete BS.

We may want to think we are but we are not doing our jobs for the greater good of society anymore. Informing the viewer of any beneficial information has become an accidental by product of what we do ever day.

The construction story seems like a great example on the surface but let me ask you... Did an investigative reporter uncover the information or did a govt. agency uncover the problems and release it to the media in a press release? If they hadn't blocked the view would any of the stations have seriously pursued the issue with real man hours and dedication?

Everyday our managers are making decisions based on attracting viewers not helping them. We want them to watch and they have learned that sound, thought provoking, informative information can not compete with pot banging. It especially can't compete given the money, man power and time they are willing to throw at it.

A car fatal yields almost no information worth putting on the air. The same goes for almost all spot news... yet it is what dominates.

A station may have covered 12 fatal car wrecks this year and it will be nothing more than an eye popping head line. An ounce of research and investigation could reveal that 10 of the 12 cars had the same brand of tires which could lead to an investigation that could save lives. No one cares though about the actual safety of the viewer. A year later a press release announcing that tires recall will be thrown away by an assignment editor because who the hell cares about a tire recall... hurry an abandoned house is on fire.

The media is like Robin Williams trying to act in dramas. He may get it right once it awhile but the majority of the time he is just a comedian begging to be taken seriously.

Of course... this is just my opinion.

Ther's a lot of truth, here. My only objection would be that it's built on the premise that spot news is neither useful nor informative.

It doesn't have to be either/or.

And I LIKE Robin Williams in his more serious roles.

[Clever Login Name]

The difference, I think, is that we're assuming what INTERESTS people is also what AFFECTS people ... and they are not necessarily the same. Viewers, as we have all seen, are interested in the fatal wrecks, the fires, the bank robberies ... even if they, personally, are not affected by them. Morbid curiosity is a big percentage of news viewership, like it or not. We can sit on our pedestal and say "Well, we're not covering those fatal wrecks, the overnight fire in the abandoned warehouse, because there's no news value to them" ... but unfortunately that is not a good business model. So you have competing interests: do we, to coin a phrase, give the people what they want? Or do we give the people what we think they need? No station can survive doing just either one ... there has to be a blend in order to be financially successful. If that means covering things you don't believe are newsworthy, so be it ... showing those stories still brings in viewers/ratings, which allows you to do the other, more pure journalism.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Right. My point was you don't see those tapes the day of the robbery.

I have seen them day-of, here in Houston.

[SamG]

OK. I don't think I've seen them day of here (Lexington), so I ASSUMED it was the same elsewhere.

[s'news]

Newspapers do. But television has time restraints.

Papers don't cover every death. They run obits on those who supply information.

But my point remains that we make an artificial distinction when we declare that it's news because someone died in a car wreck.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

get a 'sod off.'

Is that harvest time at the turf farm?

[The Mockingbird]

The problem of TV News is buyer's remorse. Buyer's remorse has driven the most educated segments of your audience away.

[NYC Street]

I don't quite understand all the hate toward producers in this thread. If the desk tells me they're sending a shooter to a multi-car fatal accident, sure I'll put it in the rundown so I can continue to build my show. It's far easier to overproduce and remove something from a newscast than it is to continually insert things all day long. If the photog finds out the multi-car fatal is actually a single car with a flat tire two markets away, then it's just the producer being lazy and her superiors not caring and being equally lazy for letting him keep it there. I can't imagine this is really that often the case, though, and I can't think of any instance when a producer I knew kept a busted story in their show.

The first problem is that the desk is sending a shooter to a multi car fatal. Unless there's more than a couple of dead folks, or unless there is something special about the accident (kids, notorious location, notorious citizen involvement, huge traffic problem, etc.) - what the heck are they doing running on a car accident, even if it's a slow day?

Other than that, the reason reporters express disdain for producers is that aside from assignment editors, producers are the natural enemy of reporters. They are the limiters of our ability to express ourselves (what do you mean, 1:20 tops?), they bury our stories (What do you mean it's not the lead?) and they are the ones who want us to actually change our work. I know I stole the line from Heinlein, but it's an article of faith among reporters that no editor (read: producer) ever liked the flavor of anything until he'd peed in it first. (That's from "Stranger in a Strange Land" for those of you keeping score.)

Oh, yeah, and you mentioned "lazy." Another article of faith is that producers have never left the doughnut rich environment of their ergonomically designed chairs, and wouldn't be able to tell that it's more than an hour and 15 minutes from Point A to Point B ("But it's just an inch or so on the map!") and wouldn't know a lightning storm if a thunderbolt landed on their car (instead of our mast).

Aside from that, we LOVE producers. They put us on television.

[east coast producer]

I'm sorry that you work in a newsroom where you consider most of the people with whom you work your enemy. But I don't know why you think it's the producer's decision to limit you to 1:20 or why you think you're entitled to an endless slot (or why you think the producer has an endless amount of time to work with) or why you're entitled to be the lead story.

I'm sorry you're upset that producers' work is inside the newsroom. You should definitely sue whoever tricked you into signing your contract by evidently convincing you that you'd never have to leave the building. Maybe they even told you that you could work from home! I can understand your surprise that reporters actually have to go to the scene of news event to, well, report. I'm sure it wrecks havoc on your haircut, make-up and clothes that the station paid for. And I know it's upsetting when a second set of eyes reviews your work. I can only imagine now how livid one of my reporters was when he tried to tag out on "the Lower West Side" in a looklive and I had an editor remove it.

With regard to your last points, I don't know why a producer would be involved in logistics since that's something the desk and TOC would handle. Maybe you work for RNN, News12 or one of the other outlets run in someone's basement, otherwise I think you've gone beyond exaggeration and you're just making things up now.

Every single post of yours that I've ever read has been thoughtfully-written, insightful and rational. I guess everyone has an off day.

[Clever Login Name]

Not to speak for Street, but I read that post as being more generalizations of the reasons for occasional friction between reporters and producers ... and not as a description of daily life at his shop. Many, if not most, times both work together and resolve things amicably and professionally ... but since everyone likes to b!tch about how other people do their jobs, he just listed the most common complaints and their sources.

[east coast producer]

He should take greater care in choosing pronouns then... or you could read mine as more generalizations of the reasons of occasional friction between reporters and producers.

[Old Shooter]

The main reason the useless spot news problem is out of hand is lack of staff. When I ran a local desk in the late '80s. I had the photog staff to send to "check things out". We got some great stories when I sent someone to a scene that just didn't sound right. 75% of the time the photog would go to the scene, spray it and call back to say that it wasn't worth airing. The producers didn't care because the had extra local material that had been shot that day to fill the :45.

When I managed that newsroom we had 22 full time photographers plus a sports photog and a special projects shooter (Sharing ten Beta and eight 3/4 inch rigs). Now that station has a total of 10 full timers and 2 part timers. At least no OMBs yet.

Today if we pull a crew to go shoot a spot news event it's got to air because we just lost the story they were working on.

I don't know how many people here remember the day when didn't need every story that was on the board in the morning meeting to turn. Editorial decision making went out the door when you had to use everything shot that day just to fill slot.

[Spike]

I'm sorry you're upset that producers' work is inside the newsroom.

If only the producers would remember that.

[NYC Street]

If only the producers would remember that.

Nope. They never will.

No more than they'll ever be able to recognize the humor font.

Sorry, ECP. I didn't mean to (and don't think I did) imply that my shop is a bad place. I wouldn't be caught dead working inside. I absolutely love the streets, where it's our team versus the world. Unfortunately, producers often become part of that world.

That having been said, I've had the pleasure of working with some truly great producers over the years, many of whom became NDs in other shops (some of them even became good NDs. Others not so much).

But it's the truly dumb things that stick out. Like the now ND who as the 11 PM producer couldn't understand why we couldn't get from Far Rockaway to Newark in time for a live shot when she changed her mind about a story. It was only 9:30 PM on a Friday and we had a full hour and a half... Like the producer who insisted that the weatherguesser had told him it wasn't going to be stormy until at least 7. That lighting? We must be mistaken. None was expected for quite some time.

When it comes to time restrictions, my line to producers has always been a simple one. I'll get my package done at the length at which it works and say to the producer, "You screen it, tell me what you want to lose, and we'll make it happen." The result almost invariably is the producer walking out the room cursing under his or her breath, trying to figure out where else the cuts can be made.

Then again, I don't usually cover fluff.

Nine times out of ten it's the new producer or the suck up trying to score points with the bosses who gives the rest the bad name. Most of them you can beat some sense into, if you have enough time. But the deadlines and the audience won't wait.

[s'news]

When it comes to time restrictions, my line to producers has always been a simple one. I'll get my package done at the length at which it works and say to the producer, "You screen it, tell me what you want to lose, and we'll make it happen." The result almost invariably is the producer walking out the room cursing under his or her breath, trying to figure out where else the cuts can be made.



Let's work on this. It shouldn't be done like this. Sell the producer on why you want more time in advance. Once given a time, hit it.

[Another side]

Nope ... I prefer Street's approach: let the story speak for itself. Yes, it causes problems -- perhaps even last-minute problems -- but the story, and not the theoretical value of the story -- should rule.

I think most of us, in print AND broadcast, were counseled at least once to make the story impossible for the editor/producer to cut.

It's still great advice.

[east coast producer]

So which other reporter needs to cut down his package because you decided you are more important than everyone else?

@Street: The producer isn't cursing because your package can't be cut down. He's cursing because you've just made a lot of other people's jobs more complicated because you decided the rules didn't apply to you. At network, you WILL be cut down. If you're budgeted 1:30, you WILL get 1:30. Not 1:31.

[Consider This]

Nope ... I prefer Street's approach: let the story speak for itself.

In theory, I like it too. But it's not practical for the realities of most newsrooms. How much notice is he giving the producer to screen the story and suggest cuts? How much time do most producers have to watch packages and argue with the reporter about what's critical to the story or not?

Sorry but Street's line sounds much less like a defense of a story's integrity and much more like, "I don't care about you, or the show, or the other reporters whose stories might also deserve more than their allotted time. I'm going to go as long as I want and you're all going to deal with it."

If I were a producer, I know how I would. I wouldn't walk away muttering. I'd make cuts. But since we'd likely be pushing showtime, I wouldn't have time for the scalpel. I'd have to use the cleaver. The result would likely horrify the reporter.

But he'd never screw me like that again.

For a daily turn, if a reporter can't consistently hit a given time within a few seconds either way, he has a problem either with his ego or his competence. If a story I was working might run longer than assigned, I'd warn the producer as soon as possible. If extra time was unavailable, *I* would want to be the one deciding what to sacrifice, not someone who hasn't been elbow deep into it and has a dozen other things on her mind.

[The Mockingbird]

When I was a producer I'd bend over backwards to give my guys the time they thought the story needed, and they'd help me out in return.

If a reporter pulled a c*ck-waving stunt like that in front of me-- and assuming I wasn't buried by real issues, I'd cut the package; the first thing I'd cut would be the reporter's standup bridge. Then I'd hack out time to make it fit its slot like a nail hammered into a screwhole.

Television is a team sport.

[Clever Login Name]

In theory, I like it too. But it's not practical for the realities of most newsrooms. How much notice is he giving the producer to screen the story and suggest cuts? How much time do most producers have to watch packages and argue with the reporter about what's critical to the story or not?

Sorry but Street's line sounds much less like a defense of a story's integrity and much more like, "I don't care about you, or the show, or the other reporters whose stories might also deserve more than their allotted time. I'm going to go as long as I want and you're all going to deal with it."

If I were a producer, I know how I would. I wouldn't walk away muttering. I'd make cuts. But since we'd likely be pushing showtime, I wouldn't have time for the scalpel. I'd have to use the cleaver. The result would likely horrify the reporter.

But he'd never screw me like that again.

For a daily turn, if a reporter can't consistently hit a given time within a few seconds either way, he has a problem either with his ego or his competence. If a story I was working might run longer than assigned, I'd warn the producer as soon as possible. If extra time was unavailable, *I* would want to be the one deciding what to sacrifice, not someone who hasn't been elbow deep into it and has a dozen other things on her mind.

Ayup.

[NYC Street]

I should have made it clear that I'm not talking about that approach to daily stories, but rather for enterprise stories. Yes, every once in a while, it's still possible to get one done...

Daily turns? You want 1:50, no problem. 1:10? I'll hit that, too.

And, ECP... you clearly haven't ever worked at a network operation. Again, limiting the discussion to enterprise stories, the scripts are worked out long before the lineups. Sure, there can be adjustments due to day of air developments, but once the script has cleared legal, it's far less likely to get changed...though every once in a while, the lawyers decide the footage alters the meaning....

[Sultanosurf]

...aside from assignment editors, producers are the natural enemy of reporters. They are the limiters of our ability to express ourselves (what do you mean, 1:20 tops?), they bury our stories (What do you mean it's not the lead?) and they are the ones who want us to actually change our work.

I have no problems with producers. Or even assignment editors. (Oh, there are a few producer habits we could do without hearing ever again. Like that incessant "wrapwrapwrap" when you just started.) The problems are usually with Executive Producers or News Directors who have no connection to field realities, or even worse to me as an anchor, want us to air a breaking story with limited information, just to get the story on the air 'first.' Some 'get it' and realize that most times it's best to take time to do it right. But I've seen some EPs who shuttle crews all over town, even after they're set for a live shot, just because another story looks sexier. You end up with neither story being done right, and risk wrecks.

And a few news managers like to scream and yell about train wrecks afterward on breaking news, without realizing they didn't have their ducks in a row to begin with. I'm all in favor of getting what you have on the air and letting the viewer decide, but sometimes you're setting yourself up to look unprofessional.

As a reporter, I really don't care about leading a show, and figure whoever's stacking has their reasons. And most pieces can usually lose 15-30 seconds and still get the meat across. But at some point, you need to lock things down and provide a polished 'cast, and have the same attitude show after show.

And let's hope there still is room for enterprise pieces, since most seem to get short shrift during any news meeting, unless you've done a buttload of politicking to get the idea sold...

[News Is Broken]

OK, I admit it. I am a little scared.