TO START WITH A SOT OR NOT? That is the question.

[A Step Above Productions]

Hey guys and gals,

I had this debate earlier this year with some photogs and wanted to hear everyone’s opinion. What is the best way to start of a package? For me it is a little nat sound then track with great video. But more and more lately I have been seeing packs start off with a boring sot, no cover video, no nats… just a talking head.

As a rule I think nat, track, great video is the best way to draw in the audience – now if you have an amazing powerful/emotional sot use it. But if it is just some boring BS sot that you can’t cover with video…DON’T DO IT.

In the first four seconds of a pack you audience is going to decide whether or not it is worth watching – you need to draw them in with nats and visual video – not a boring talking head. Now I blame this on both the photog and reporter. We have to let them know if they are starting the pack off weakly.

I feel starting off with a boring sot is the sign of a lazy reporter. This is just my opinion but it seems to be a trend as of late.

I worked with a reporter this week that started of her pack with a boring sot – and I had nothing to match it with. I pulled her aside and we talked – she was stuck with the idea of starting off with a sot. So we compromised. She found a sot that I had video with and I started off with nats and covered the sot with video. She loved it and told me no one has ever told her to do this.

Whats your take on this?

[Lensmith]

The short answer is, there is no hard and fast rule.

Your title is a little misleading to this thread. It should read...TO START WITH A BORING SOT OR NOT. If that was the question then the answer is no, never.

People tend to go into formula mode too often. They want rules that are never broken. By doing that, all stories end up looking the same. Cookie cutters.

Each story is, or should be, different. Judge each one for what it is and use the elements available to make it the best, most interesting it can be.

Sometimes that may mean starting with a sound bite. Sometimes it may mean using some natural sound. Sometimes it may be using scripted track.

Another consideration is how the story lead-in is written. That may help determine if an SOT at the open of the story is best or not.

Lots of variables. No safe, easy, rule to all back on when putting together every story for air.

You did find your own best solution for your specific example. Working together. Not diving right into staunch conflict.

You both, reporter and photographer, came out ahead.

And the viewer won too. ;)

[Brock Samson]

Starting with a SOT is like taking a bite of a $hit sandwich.

Soon as you do it, you wish you hadn't. Your senses are offended. Lamentation occurs. Tears are shed. Maybe, just maybe, your very soul is in danger.


Although Lensmith is right about not falling into 'the formula,' it's one of those whotheheckknows type things. If it's done in an interesting way, like a really great soundbite framed in a really profound way, sure why not. If it's Police Leutenant number ZX57T814 saying 'A situation arose at approximately 1800 hours in which a bystander alerted authorities to the disturbance' (as they are wont to do for some reason, it seems, ha ha) I would likely be a little wary of opening with that.

[Buck Satan]

Can you start with a good nat visual that could express what the sound bite says? Picture worth a 1000 and all that...

[Rad]

If are starting with a SOT... or just a nat sound bite, I want to SEE who is talking to me... unless you're building to a reveal. I hate disembodied voices in stories. I like to see who is talking to me.

[Freddie Mercury]

Lensmith wrote what I was thinking mostly. The key is in how powerful that sot is.

MANY years ago (about 20) when I was starting, I was told "Open with your best shot, close with your second best". Now, for purposes of sequencing, story flow and making sense this can't always be taken literally, but the point is how you start the story is important.

The typical talking head will not inspire the viewer to look at the screen or stay on your channel. Nat sound is an excellent attention getter because it cues the viewer that they need to look and see what they are hearing. A great sot can draw a viewer in just as well as nats. Something like, "I almost died today", "She's my life" or "Those bastards are going to pay". Something with emotion, that sums the story up and hopefully isn't too long.

Your best defense against a boring opening sot is to offer alternatives before the script is written. While you are shooting, look out for shots that would make a great open or close and mention them to the reporter on the way back to the station or live location. If you word it right, they won't feel like you're forcing it on them. Most appreciate the input.

If I end up with a script that opens with a boring sot, though, I'll find some nats to put before it if at all possible and maybe cover the sot with video as well. Whatever serves the story.

[svp]

Starting with a SOT is perfectly fine if its covered with video and the SOT is short and expresses some kind of emotion. Following that SOT with a quick nat pop before hearing track also enhances its use. However, if you start with a covered SOT, then the second SOT in the package must be the same person so you can show that person and the viewers can identify that person with the opening SOT. Under no circumstances should a package ever start or end on a talking head. A great package will start video ESTABLISHING the location of the story and end with video DISTANCING OR DETACHING the viewer from the story.

[Rad]

Under no circumstances should a package ever start or end on a talking head.

Pkg Open: Sheriff is standing on the side of the interstate, medium wide shot, he has on leg propped up on the guard rail, looking across the burned patch of roadside, he Says: " I've been sheriff in this county for 23 years... was a deputy for 5 years before that (cut to tight shot of his face) I aint never seen anything like this and I hope I never do again.)

I'd open with that in any day of the week.... and twice on Sundays.

No hard and fast rules. If it works, It works.

[svp]

Pkg Open: Sheriff is standing on the side of the interstate, medium wide shot, he has on leg propped up on the guard rail, looking across the burned patch of roadside, he Says: " I've been sheriff in this county for 23 years... was a deputy for 5 years before that (cut to tight shot of his face) I aint never seen anything like this and I hope I never do again.)

I'd open with that in any day of the week.... and twice on Sundays.

No hard and fast rules. If it works, It works.

I'd have to see it before I'd decide if it were OK or not. I probably would have covered it with video unless he had tears rolling down his face or something.

[cameradog]

Some of you people are thinking in terms of what is interesting to photographers and not what is interesting to viewers. A SOT might be boring to you, but not boring to a viewer.

Viewers like to see faces. They like to hear people talk. Normal people relate to stories through the people in them. That's why the NPPA stresses finding stories about people instead of stories about dry facts. Too bad they f*ck everything else up after that.

People are interesting. Faces are interesting. Faces tell you a lot about people. Faces can tell whole stories in themselves. That's why portraiture is an art that continues strong even today. That's why the Smithsonian has an entire museum dedicated to portraits. That's why "Faces of the Fallen" was such a powerful photographic work.

Believe it or not, when someone is talking in a story, that draws in the normal viewer's attention. "What's this guy saying? Is it important? Is he telling the truth? Is he sad about it? Is he happy about it? Is he hiding something? Is he arrogant? Is he someone I'd like to drink a beer with? Do I trust him?" All these questions can be answered by looking at a face. You see his skin and know his age. You know his race. You can see whether he works outdoors or indoors. You see his hair and get a sense of whether he's a businessman or a redneck or a rock musician. You get a sense of his weight and whether he indulges. You can see rich and poor. You can hear and see sexual orientation. You can pick up a million cues that tell you about this person. And that's just the face. Body language gives you another million cues.

And you people think seeing an interview is boring?

There's nothing wrong with starting a package with a SOT. You may have something more visual that can draw in the viewer. You may not. Remember that what YOU think is cool and interesting from a photog's perspective isn't necessarily something the viewer is going to enjoy.

Consider this: 60 Minutes is still the highest rated news program on television. What is the central feature of every 60 Minutes story?

Interviews.

[code20photog]

If are starting with a SOT... or just a nat sound bite, I want to SEE who is talking to me... unless you're building to a reveal. I hate disembodied voices in stories. I like to see who is talking to me.

AMEN BROTHER! Personally, I don't cover the first bite from someone in a package, and especially off the top. You don't know who's talking, and if I ruled the world, that'd be a steadfast rule. IF we're going from person A to person B back to person A, if it's Man then Woman and back to man, I'll cover the second bite. If it's all women or all men, I don't like to cover the whole bite, simply becuase I think it's confusing not knowing which person you're hearing from.

Secondly, my reporter teaches young wantabees that unless the SOT is spectacular, don't lead with a SOT. "[sobbing] My house is gone, everything's gone!" Good lead sot. "We are still looking for a suspect" bad lead sot.

In an editing standpoint, when I first started in the biz, I was told by a well-seasoned reporter to try and start every pkg with a bit of nat sound, not so much for effect, but more so to not cut off the first track if they take the tape late.

[A Step Above Productions]

I also posted the exact same question on TVSPY and it is amazing how different the answers are. Here on B-roll the majority disagree with me and on TVSPY most of them agree with me.

What do you think that means?

Here are some examples from TVSPY.

boring sots shouls never be used anywhere in the pkg. and to start with a sounbite it has to be very strong.

you have someone crying because they just lost a home or a family member then a SOT works great.

Starting a PKG about the new city tax is a bad idea.

But NATSND should be used the same way. Don't call for NATSND if there isn't real sound.

The start of the story should grab the viewer. If your NATSND doesn't do it and you don't have a good SOT then make your script do the grabbing and start your PKG with track.

Saying "I start every PKG with NATSND" is also very boring


ALWAYS start your pkg off with THE MOST compelling video. If the SOT is your most compelling video, the photog isn't doing their job.

Also, when you say "KRAP's Jane Doe has the latest on how this is impacting blah blah..." and then you show some other lady, your audience might think that lady is KRAP's Jane Doe...


This isn't radio. Take advantage of that and give the viewers some great pictures to grab their attention.

There is no right way to start a pack. People have preferences, that's all.

I do, however, think it's a mistake to think that all packages should start/end a certain way. It's all about making the best of what you have to work with.


I see this happen far too often: a reporter gets a good sound bite (often someone crying) then says, "this is dramatic sound, I should open the package with it."

The problem is the reporter hasn't put the sound in context.

If the person is sad over the death of a family member, for example, the sound is much more powerful and carries much more emotion once the viewer has learned something about the people and circumstances involved.

Take an example out of real life ... let's say you are walking down the street and see a young child crying. If you don't know why, you probably are not going too feel strongly about it (maybe he/she is tired, or hungry).

Now, let's say you know the child is sad because the family dog, and the child's best friend, is sick and is going to have to be put down. That may tug at your heart a bit more.

It is the same thing with your story. If the viewer doesn't know what a person is sad about, those are just tears, not emotion.


As a general rule, you do not open with a sot. It better be earth-shattering if you do. I can spot a rookie pkg from a mile away when it starts with a sot and segues into a monotone voiceover. Tell the story and set up your nats or sots... with pictures as your brushstrokes. Radio does sots. We do visual storytelling.

I would recommend you get in the habit of asking your photographer what he/she thinks the package's opening and closing shots should be. Do this as soon as you're putting the gear away. You'll be surprised how they'll start thinking about those two things BEFORE they hit the record button.

The ones I work with enjoy the buy-in and will offer me ideas for starting my piece.

I'm not saying be lazy and let someone else dictate your story, but if you make it a team effort and remind them they're helping you tell a "story", you'll usually get great results.


Thinking there are rules that have to be followed.. i know this has been said a number of ways earlier on this boiard, but it's real simple..every story stands on its own, and on its own merits.. if the SOT is worth opening the piece with, do it.. but those occasions are gonna be few an far between.. sometimes, you can set up a powerful sound bite NEAR the top with as little as one short sentence..it all depends..and yes, it's always a good idea to aks the photog.. he/she knows what's on the tape, and they're an equal partner in the effort..

If starting with a SOT helps you get into the piece and gets it flowing well, then great, do it. If not, then don't force it. I rarely ever start a package with a SOT, more often than not I start with good nats to hook the viewer into the story I'm telling. If I do start with a SOT, it's quick and b-rolled over.

Some reporters tell me they open with SOT as a means of disguising their transition from live lead to track.

That's no reason.
If you sound different on tape than you do in a track, then you're not ready for prime time.

If in the field, try to track with the same mic you will use live.

I rarely open with a sound-bite. Did it once, this week, and that was the first time in memory. In that case, it flowed well from my set-up on tape.

More often, I open with a touch of natural sound, but NOT a manufactured series of SOT-POPS from my photographer. We usually don't have the time to do it, and if the rest of the piece cannot support such a pace, we do it a disservice.

Ever hear of a scene-set? A touch of nats, and then even one line, will serve fine.

Whatever you do, remember that a package must stand on it's own from beginning to end.

[cameradog]

Here are some examples from TVSPY.

If TVSPY didn't suck so bad, maybe more of us would care what they say over there.

[svp]

TVSPY: "ALWAYS start your pkg off with THE MOST compelling video."

That is absolutely the worse thing you can do. If you show them the best video in the first 15 seconds, why stick around for the rest of the story?

I remember seeing a great NAT piece from KUSA about a orange construction barrel that somehow got on the top of this huge pine tree. That was the best video, yet we didn't see it until near the end. Most of the story was people standing around wondering how that happened. When you watch it, you keep asking yourself, what are they looking at.

The best stories are those that build suspense and keep the viewer wanting more by revealing those "gold nuggets" gradually. If you're covering a story about a huge car accident and there's a car that was litterally cut in two, you don't show that right off the top. You maybe start with traffic tie up, people saying "I can't believe it" and maybe cops directing traffic. You build up to the reviel of the car, you don't show it off the top.

Another thing that irritates me is when anchor or reporter intros give away the entire story. Anchor: "A car is ripped in two today on the interstate, leaving two people critically injured." That's the worse thing to say. Why even watch the story?

[A Step Above Productions]

The best stories are those that build suspense and keep the viewer wanting more by revealing those "gold nuggets" gradually. If you're covering a story about a huge car accident and there's a car that was litterally cut in two, you don't show that right off the top. You maybe start with traffic tie up, people saying "I can't believe it" and maybe cops directing traffic. You build up to the reviel of the car, you don't show it off the top.

I agree 100% - as far as the TVSPY reference... I just was trying to show the difference of opinions from reporter to photogs... I found it very interesting.

[svp]

I agree 100% - as far as the TVSPY reference... I just was trying to show the difference of opinions from reporter to photogs... I found it very interesting.

I know, I just had to point that line out because I've heard it quite a few times before and its just dead wrong. I think that the best video must come at the end. However, to do that, the reporter has to write in a way that builds up to that moment or it doesn't work. Writing that way is much harder, which is why I think few reporters do it. Its just too much work for them. It takes too much thinking on their part. You have to think outside of the box to tell a story that way. I just got done watching a story online from Indianapolis about bowling. It starts off showing and talking about young kids bowling, then transitions to a story about these old timers who still bowl all the time. Later, we find out that one of the guys is nearly 100. Finally, at the end, we find out that the real story isn't that he's nearly 100 and still bowling, but that he's doing it while still averaging a 150 per game. It was a great story and everytime I thought I knew what the story was about, I learned something new. That's great storytelling.

[cameradog]

I think that the best video must come at the end.

That's wrong too. The best video should come wherever it makes the most sense in a specific story. Sometimes that's the beginning. Sometimes that's the end. Sometimes it's somewhere in the middle.

Reporters need to think in terms of three act structure: beginning, middle and end. Where the best video ends up will depend on where it falls in that structure. If the reporter is telling a compelling story, the audience will stay interested throughout the piece, regardless of which part gives the photog a hardon.

[Freddie Mercury]

Some of you people are thinking in terms of what is interesting to photographers and not what is interesting to viewers.

Are you socially retarded, or do you just enjoy pissing people off? You start out with "You people" and spew your tired rantings of how photogs just shoot to please themselves and other photographers, all without anything but your self-righteous opinion to back it up.

That's why the NPPA stresses finding stories about people instead of stories about dry facts. Too bad they f*ck everything else up after that.

Then you decide to take another unprovoked shot at the NPPA while strangely enough using it's teachings to show that you are right since they agree with you???

And you people think seeing an interview is boring?

Again with the "You people". I guess since you aren't a photographer any more you need to stress how you are above us, though you can't quite bring yourself to ignore us.

If TVSPY didn't suck so bad, maybe more of us would care what they say over there.

Maybe with your know-it-all attitude and lack of sensitivity to other people's feelings you would make a good TV news consultant. The world is clearly in need of the benefit of your far superior wisdom.

That's wrong too.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

[ewink]

Just curious, but if the reporter scripts the SOT off the top, does it really matter what we think? I am pretty sure I'm not allowed to move sound around just because I want to use my XCU of a teddybear burning...

For the record, I hate doing it, especially coming into it from a where the reporter is on camera since I HATE wide soundbytes, I shoot them tight and it looks strange. If it's scripted, I usually try and cover it with video (I know, disembodied sound bad) but like I said. It looks weird.

[cameradog]

You start out with "You people" and spew your tired rantings of how photogs just shoot to please themselves and other photographers, all without anything but your self-righteous opinion to back it up.

Obviously I wasn't talking about you, since you always consider your viewer first and don't fill your packages with silly gimmicks that only impress photographers. Right?

[Freddie Mercury]

How did you reach your conclusions about what viewers want? You state all these things, like people want to see faces and sots draw in people's attention as if you are reporting from some hard data. I don't necessarily even disagree with some of your conclusions, but when you slap me with it like a smelly fish, my first reaction is not going to be receptiveness.

[Rad]

Just curious, but if the reporter scripts the SOT off the top, does it really matter what we think? I am pretty sure I'm not allowed to move sound around .

To quote a good friend of mine: "It's not a script, it's a rough outline."

But seriously, the reporter shouldn't be handing you a script without having discussed it first.

But I often change sound bites, move things around or simply just go back to the reporter and say "I think it works better this way."

[svp]

To quote a good friend of mine: "It's not a script, it's a rough outline."

But seriously, the reporter shouldn't be handing you a script without having discussed it first.

But I often change sound bites, move things around or simply just go back to the reporter and say "I think it works better this way."

Sorry guys, but you shouldn't be moving sound around and changing things without the reporters and/or producers approval. Doing that could change the perception of the story. That's why producers have to approve scipts before they are handed off to you. Changing it could change the story. That's a no no. If I were in charge and a photographer did that without getting the OK first, I'd see to it that they were fired.

[Freddie Mercury]

Sorry guys, but you shouldn't be moving sound around and changing things without the reporters and/or producers approval. Doing that could change the perception of the story. That's why producers have to approve scipts before they are handed off to you. Changing it could change the story. That's a no no. If I were in charge and a photographer did that without getting the OK first, I'd see to it that they were fired.

Where do you draw the "change" line? I routinely add nat sound off the top and as a break, and it is not only accepted but is expected. Sometimes a reporter scripts a sot and doesn't realize that it goes on too long or has long pauses in it, so I will shorten it. I make sure it still makes the same point and that the reporter knows about the change, but I make the change. Am I fired?

[Rad]

Scripts are written and approved all the time... but the story doesn't become "TV" until it's in the edit room.

I'll quote myself on this one: "Nothing brings down a news organization like doing exactly as you're told."

I've been in the business more than a week, I'm a journalist, a photojournalist, and I know how to tweak a story to make it good TV while still maintaining the journalistic integrity of the story.

You'd fire me for that?

According to your "rules", if the President looked right into the camera and said; "I should have never ordered the invasion of Iraq. I screwed up. And the American people need to know that!", I'd have to cover that bite with file video of troops in Iraq if I wanted to start my story with that soundbite,

Maybe quoting Pirates of the Caribbean is most appropriate; "...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. "

[satop]

I don't see how you can have a "rule" for how to start a piece. Doesn't it depend on what you get when shooting? someone said allways start with nats....what is there is no nats?

someone said never start or end on a sot, why? good sots are a good way to wrap a piece before the reporter does his/her live tag....we go live for every story.....that is just the way it is here.

I don't see how you can have rules that are so tight....anytime someone uses never, allways, or must in giving instructions for shooting or editing, I don't think they really know what they are doing. What we do, what I do varies every day and with every story I cover.

At one station in town here, the reporter packages are sot, track, sot, track, sot.....90% of them are that formula. That is what that station does. That is what their viewers expect. If you ask me it is boring, but who am I to comment since I don't work there.

[jeremycohn]

I've always been told best pictures first, no exceptions. While I think this is often true, there are exceptions to that....

[AB]

Consider this: 60 Minutes is still the highest rated news program on television. What is the central feature of every 60 Minutes story?

Interviews.


I have to agree with the sentiment there are no hard rules on this one.

RAD hit it on the head too when saying viewers want to see who is talking to them off the top.

As far as "60 Minutes", this past Sunday I watched the segment on the FBI agent who befriended Saddam Hussein to get information from him. The majority of this story was SOTs that put the agents face up the whole time. Plenty of reversals and on camera questions were being asked.

I actually thought to myself during the middle of the story, wow, this guy's face is on camera a lot. But more importantly, it didn't bother me. I was sucked in by the story and I wanted to see this man's face. It made the story more real for me.

Yes, there was file video of Saddam throughout, but the strongest parts were looking at this FBI agent on camera as he told his story. His eyes, facial expressions and demeanor were as important as his words.

I know this is long-format and not your typical 1:15 pkg, but some lessons can be learned. There is nothing wrong with seeing who is talking. I've put together plenty of stories where I've covered too many bites that I'd like to have back.

[svp]

Where do you draw the "change" line? I routinely add nat sound off the top and as a break, and it is not only accepted but is expected. Sometimes a reporter scripts a sot and doesn't realize that it goes on too long or has long pauses in it, so I will shorten it. I make sure it still makes the same point and that the reporter knows about the change, but I make the change. Am I fired?

What you just described is much different from what RAD said above. He makes it sound like if he doesn't like the sound bite, he replaces it with a totally different bite and that he might sometimes completely rearrange the SOTS. To me, he shouldn't be doing that. You're just talking about adding nats and shortening bites that are long or have pauses, not completely putting in a different bite. What you're doing seems find to me but what RAD makes it sound like he does is completely unacceptable without the reporter and/or producers approval.

[A Step Above Productions]

First off there are exceptions to every rule - rules are just guide lines. You have to know what you are doing before it is okay to break any rules.

I actually thought to myself during the middle of the story, wow, this guy's face is on camera a lot. But more importantly, it didn't bother me. I was sucked in by the story and I wanted to see this man's face. It made the story more real for me.


It is fine not to cover every SOT... I never said you should do that. I still cover every SOT if it IS off the top of a PKG, unless there is emotion in the SOT then I keep the SOT up the entire time.

Now when I say I cover SOTs off the top - I don't cover the entire SOT - I do agree we need to see who is talking so I show the face for the last 5-6 seconds of the sot so we can super them.

More often than not SOT in local news can be boring, so caover them if you can. If you have a SOT like the 60 minuets intevew - don't cover it.

Cover SOTS to make the PKG more interesting - don't cover SOTS if it is going to take away from the PKG.

[AB]

More often than not SOT in local news can be boring, so caover them if you can. If you have a SOT like the 60 minuets intevew - don't cover it.

Cover SOTS to make the PKG more interesting - don't cover SOTS if it is going to take away from the PKG.

I think we all agree there is no cut and dry rule.

But when you say cover the SOTs to make the PKG more interesting, interesting for who?

Not many people at home watch the news like a photographer. Not everyone is glued to their television watching every second of a story. I don't think people mind seeing a person's face for a SOT as much as we think they do.