[TODAY] WTSP-TV Uses Skype for Live Shot

[b-roll]

From: Al Tompkins, Poynter.org

Monday morning, WTSP-TV anchor/reporter Janie Porter was on TV, reporting live from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., on the run-up to this week’s national college football championship game. She didn’t have a big live truck accompanying her, or an engineer tuning in a shot or a photojournalist standing behind the camera and setting up lights.

Porter set up her own camera, opened her laptop, connected the camera to her computer, slipped a wireless connection card into her laptop, called up Skype and used her Blackberry to establish IFB (the device TV folks wear in their ears to hear the off-air signal). It all looked just great on air.



Read More (including an Interview with Ms. Porter) at Poynter.org.

This is sure to raise lively debate about VJ’s and OMB’s. Poynter has set up a chat for today (1-1:30pm ET , January 7, 2009)



More...

 

[itsmillertime109]

Poor mans microwave.

For our student coverage of election night, we did exactly that. We set up a macbook pro, connected a camera to it, and set it up on skype. Worked quite well actually considering the school doesn't have the capability of doing live shots via microwave. We also had our reporter wear an IFB connected to the comp. We got all sorts of funny looks from the other photogs, but hey...it worked...and I don't know of any other college in boston that did the same thing.

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

Gotta love the fuzzy, out of focus picture

Warren

 

[gwedits]

Yes, I noticed they never took the shot full screen. Also, too much head room, but, hey, they were live cheaply and news directors around the country got erections (from the technology not the anchor)!

 

[SoMissTV]

It all looked just great on air.

Well, that's it then. Pack up the truck, boys; you're not needed anymore.

I love the opinion thrown into the "news" article. Makes it feel all "cable newsy."

 

[Baltimore Shooter]

Interesting, the graphic says "Live Via Skype". Is Skype paying for that advertising or are they getting that for free. You never see a live microwave shot saying "Live via such-n-such brand microwave", or a satellite live shot saying "Live via IntelSat" or "Live via PanAm Sat".

Warren

 

[SoMissTV]

I watched something recently where the live shot was done via Skype. It was paid thing, 'cause the program used the Skype logo and wouldn't shut up about it.

Of course, it's more likely that Skype is becoming a generic term for the technology, like Kleenex.

 

[itsmillertime109]

I still love how its an HD broadcast and they're using a poor connection that makes them look like they're reporting from inside a war zone rather than the lobby of a hotel.

 

[The Thing on The Sticks]

The last shop I worked it loved this kind of stuff. They used streambox for look lives from Amsterdam, the super bowl and I believe even the Olympics in torino

 

[Cletus918]

We did this for election night this last year. We sent one reporter out of microwave range, and being small market - no sat truck.

It worked about as well as you could expect, really. The reporter didn't have a high enough table, so the cam was shooting up at the ceiling so you couldn't see anything anyways. It was just a matter of "We're live!" Didn't look so good when she'd move out of the shot and the interview would move in. Actually, in my mind it was kinda amateurish looking.

It was, apparently, a one-time deal because we've never gone back to it.

I could see this as a reasonable breaking news solution when you don't have the means to go and do the real live shot.

 

[John M.]

Yes, I noticed they never took the shot full screen. Also, too much head room, but, hey, they were live cheaply and news directors around the country got erections (from the technology not the anchor)!

It's full screen for people watching on 4X3. The camera she uses is SD.

 

[jbcameraguy]

At first I was a little afraid, because were talking market 13 here. That would be a really bad sign, but then I remembered who they are owned by; Gannett

 

[AB]

Think big picture people.

Yes this may not be the best quality right now. But it's being done and that's the point.

No expensive live truck. Yes, managers would get excited about something like this, they can cut seen budgets for the future years that don't include spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on replacing live trucks.

I don't like a lot of things about this or the quality of the product in the recent VJ threads, but burying our heads in the sand screaming about quality is not the way to go forward in this business.

 

[shootist]

We used Skype last election night but not for our reporters. We used numerous Skype shots to talk with people around the state. Analysts in Philly....a student at Penn State who registered 10,000 voters...that kind of thing. Definitely functional and "acceptable" to me as it wasn't "our" people. All free with no required tip o' the hat to Skype-folk. No doubt tho which way things are going.

Actually, to me, the most disappointing things about that hotel live shot were:

1.) TALKING ABOUT IT. I mean...just do it for crissakes. Why go thru the gee-whiz rundown of how cheap you are. The viewer doesn't care to hear the hows and bosses don't want you broadcasting the whys. ("And did we tell you? IT'S FREE!") Almost like the ANCHOR should be wearing the headset and pimping the sham-wow.

2.) Where was the video? If you're going to go through the process of setting all that up...why not cut a vo, export a quicktime or wmv file and ftp it? You may be going cheap...but it IS still TV.

As far as quality? Fuggedaboutit at the affiliate level for sure. Revenues are down so much bosses are looking at anything to squeeze a dime. And at the risk of hyperbole....if using shortcuts like Skype can save a few jobs until everything plays out financially, I can't say I'm opposed.

 

[2 Hungry Dogs]

My favorite part of the article is when she says;

"And because it's just my vision of the story, and not a compromise between two people (i.e. photojournalist and reporter), I often feel my backpack journalism packages bring the viewer more quickly to the essence of the story."

I'm sorry she feels she needs to compromise. I know some of the photogs and former photogs at WTSP, and I'm sorry she feels she needs to "compromise" She should look at it as a collaboration, and someone else to help bring another prspective to the situaltion. I'm always being advised not to try to do it all myself. There are lots of people out there with good ideas, who can help me do better work then I can on my own.

As for the technology, I'm fine with it, but the people are what makes it work. How many times have I been by myself, and wished merely for someone to entertain my subjects while I set up the gear. Plus, it seems like she's nev er gotten anything stolen out of a hotel ballroom if she is willing to let "annoying, curious bystanders" watch her gear for her.

 

[JoeyO38]

Something is going to have to give... You have people spending $1500 on an HD television set; then you have news stations doing live shots with webcams. If this trend continues, I think people are going to start to turn off news. I don't think people want to see crappy quality video on their expensive HD 1080i/p television set.

 

[McQueen]

The graphic should read "Skype LD" for low definition.

 

[whatsatripod]

Never have to fight

Think about it this way, how many times did you get a beach blond beauty queen telling you where to park the truck. Of course it was always in the trees and obstructed the dish from getting a clean shot. Now you can go, "Just set up your laptop. I am going off to cover breaking news, have fun!"

 

[Chicago Dog]

The same article link was posted over at MediaLine's forum. This is my reply:

I hate to say it, because I don't think it's good for the industry, but this could be the next wave.

It was a good idea, but WTSP isn't the first station to use Skype in this way. Talk about behind the times.

"It all looked just great on air" made me laugh. We're not getting the whole story here:

She didn't have a big live truck accompanying her, or an engineer tuning in a shot or a photojournalist standing behind the camera and setting up lights.

Porter set up her own camera, opened her laptop, connected the camera to her computer, slipped a wireless connection card into her laptop, called up Skype and used her Blackberry to establish IFB (the device TV folks wear in their ears to hear the off-air signal). It all looked just great on air.

What's lighting her? Who does she keep referencing as "we?" It wasn't as simple as the writer made it sound. That fact, coupled with the additional fact that this practice is not new, shows how unpopular this is.

Further: if there's a handful of people in an area using the same phone service as the air card uses, the aircard -- and the liveshot -- are screwed. Sooner or later, the stations using Skype will figure this out the hard way.

There's simply no cheap substitution for a dedicated microwave or satellite shot.

http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx?aid=76010

I think it's funny, really. From HD cameras in the nice, well-lit studio, to a crap connection with a crap camera in the field, to a poorly-shot package in 16:9. What an embarrassing hodgepodge of technology. What do you want to bet the station spent money on something incredibly stupid and are taking that money away from what they could've done in the field instead?

You want better quality news? How about getting people who know how to put it together and management who knows what they're doing?

It amazes me that managers who think lowering the numbers bean-counters are interested in are still allowed to hold their jobs. Guess what? It turns out that doing things on the cheap actually doesn't sell products.

Find some way to sell your product like you should be doing instead of saying something stupid like, "Times are tough."

Joey also nailed it down:

You have people spending $1500 on an HD television set; then you have news stations doing live shots with webcams. If this trend continues, I think people are going to start to turn off news. I don't think people want to see crappy quality video on their expensive HD 1080i/p television set.

I've said the exact same thing. The rebuttal I've received is that people don't buy those expensive televisions with the thought of watching television news.

The flipside? Exactly what Joey said: they're not going to watch television news at all if stations continue sacrificing quality.

Making a product suck more is never a good way to attract consumers.

 

[OffSticks]

None of this is groundbreaking, my buddy at CNN tells me they have been shooting broadband live shots with various applications and a lap top for a couple years. I watched them feed a press conference from the 15 floor of a sky-rise live with a Sprint wireless card and a lap top. But he tells me it is only a stop gap measure, because its unreliable. Too many people on the network and it slows it down. Drop out is also a problem, and as repeated many times here, no HD.