Death of the News Package
- Thread starter FTOJRLST
- Start date
svp
Well-known member
Yea, the reason is what I refer to as viewer A.D.D. People just don't have the attention spans anymore to sit through stories. Most just want to see a few shots and be told a brief overview of what happen then on to the next story. Honestly, I watch local news on the DVR and I catch myself fast forwarding through most packages but watching the quick VO's and VOSOTS. Most packages in local news have very little, if any, depth to them anyway.
Think about it, if something happens at a school, what's the first thing a station does? Go get parent reaction. Why? It's the same sound bite you hear in every school story and I could care less. "Oh it's tragic." "Things like this don't happen in this community."
98% of the stories in any newscast are not worthy of a reporter package and crews usually are not given the time to properly tell the story for the 2% that are worthy.
Think about it, if something happens at a school, what's the first thing a station does? Go get parent reaction. Why? It's the same sound bite you hear in every school story and I could care less. "Oh it's tragic." "Things like this don't happen in this community."
98% of the stories in any newscast are not worthy of a reporter package and crews usually are not given the time to properly tell the story for the 2% that are worthy.
At the scene
Well-known member
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. SVP you are absolutely correct. Most PKGS are not worthy, there is so little time to turn a story never mind turning 2 or 3.
One point I will disagree with, is unlike you I cannot even watch the VO's or VOSOT's. Maybe not in your market but where I live most of the VO's and VOSOT's are cut by Producers, Associate Producers, Assignment Desk, Janitors, Interns and whoever else is left at the all ready bare bones station.
The editing is so bad in the market where I live that I stopped watching news all together.
One point I will disagree with, is unlike you I cannot even watch the VO's or VOSOT's. Maybe not in your market but where I live most of the VO's and VOSOT's are cut by Producers, Associate Producers, Assignment Desk, Janitors, Interns and whoever else is left at the all ready bare bones station.
The editing is so bad in the market where I live that I stopped watching news all together.
FTOJRLST
Well-known member
So the industry's killing itself by serving chopped liver advertised at New York Strip.
I knew it.
<img id="ums_img_tooltip" class="UMSRatingIcon">
Lenslinger
Well-known member
Of all the lurching steps local news has made in the past few years, this one troubles me the most. Why? I -like- producing packages: the story arc, the weaving of sound, the chance to humanize an issue by finding people it affects... I just don't get the same warm and fuzzy feeling from a crisply shot ribbon cutting, or board meeting, or groundbreaking or whatever shallow touchstone will soon come to define, er, replace in-depth coverage.
But what does the viewer want? I'm not sure we know. A blistering A-block chock full of VO's, VOSOTS and the ever vital live shots? A heightened story count at the cost of any semblance of understanding? More time for Chet Graytemple to chortle and flirt with the weather bunny? I wish I knew...
And does a station that devalues the heavily-edited, narrated stand-alone piece also devalue the reporter? Do they become off-air shooters, occasional news readers? Does the photog become a field producer as well? Or just a techie/truck driver that helps deliver whatever video the hair-do didn't shoot on his iPhone?
And as for those who say most packages suck, anyway, I'll meet you halfway. I see plenty of tired old tropes trotted out year after year in package form that are merely new crews going through the same old motions. But at least where I work, we try to do those tired old stories in a fresh way and no matter how stupid the assignment, we take pride in at least trying to make it sing.
I do wonder if we put too much emphasis on the package. Maybe today's viewer only wants Twitter-like blasts of info with little to no follow-up. It wouldn't really surprise me, though it does hurt my feelings. The "package" is, for lack of a better term, the chose art-form for most photogs I know. We labor over them, find small victories in them, and fret, worry and tweak them long after everyone else has decided to phone it in. Some of us enter them in contests; others stack them up on their own YouTube channels. There our calling cards. Could local TV news find a way to survive without them? I guess. but I for one, would surely miss them.
But what does the viewer want? I'm not sure we know. A blistering A-block chock full of VO's, VOSOTS and the ever vital live shots? A heightened story count at the cost of any semblance of understanding? More time for Chet Graytemple to chortle and flirt with the weather bunny? I wish I knew...
And does a station that devalues the heavily-edited, narrated stand-alone piece also devalue the reporter? Do they become off-air shooters, occasional news readers? Does the photog become a field producer as well? Or just a techie/truck driver that helps deliver whatever video the hair-do didn't shoot on his iPhone?
And as for those who say most packages suck, anyway, I'll meet you halfway. I see plenty of tired old tropes trotted out year after year in package form that are merely new crews going through the same old motions. But at least where I work, we try to do those tired old stories in a fresh way and no matter how stupid the assignment, we take pride in at least trying to make it sing.
I do wonder if we put too much emphasis on the package. Maybe today's viewer only wants Twitter-like blasts of info with little to no follow-up. It wouldn't really surprise me, though it does hurt my feelings. The "package" is, for lack of a better term, the chose art-form for most photogs I know. We labor over them, find small victories in them, and fret, worry and tweak them long after everyone else has decided to phone it in. Some of us enter them in contests; others stack them up on their own YouTube channels. There our calling cards. Could local TV news find a way to survive without them? I guess. but I for one, would surely miss them.
code20photog
Well-known member
I said this a couple years ago, and was laughed out of the room.
I foresee a point where a newscast may be nothing *but* VO and VOSOTs, no expensive reporters, no long drawn out stories, just quick story after quick story. Our 6pm newscast is already pretty much that model, you'll only see a package or live shot when it's a *BIG* story. Part of it is not wanting to pay the extra $$ for dayside crews to stay, but part of it is the idea of cramming in as many stories in the A Block as possible.
The Fox station in our market takes it a step further. They have VOSOTs where theres VO, a SOT, back on cam, another SOT, then sometimes trailing VO. Basically a package, sans the reporter.
If you look at it from a beancounter's standpoint, most of the time, a reporter and anchor are redundant. There's really no use to have a reporter voice a glorified VOSOT while the high paid anchor stands there and does nothing for 90 seconds. I know people don't like to hear this, but send out an MMJ or "content producer" at a fraction of the cost of a reporter to shoot, write, edit and feed a VOSOT, then move on to the next story. Each MMJ should be able to churn out 2-3 VOSOTs a day, and if you have 3, 4, 5 on staff, you're looking at 10 or more stories.
And let's face it, if we're shooting for the 18-35 demo, they have the attention span of wait what were we talking about again, oh look something shiny.
I foresee a point where a newscast may be nothing *but* VO and VOSOTs, no expensive reporters, no long drawn out stories, just quick story after quick story. Our 6pm newscast is already pretty much that model, you'll only see a package or live shot when it's a *BIG* story. Part of it is not wanting to pay the extra $$ for dayside crews to stay, but part of it is the idea of cramming in as many stories in the A Block as possible.
The Fox station in our market takes it a step further. They have VOSOTs where theres VO, a SOT, back on cam, another SOT, then sometimes trailing VO. Basically a package, sans the reporter.
If you look at it from a beancounter's standpoint, most of the time, a reporter and anchor are redundant. There's really no use to have a reporter voice a glorified VOSOT while the high paid anchor stands there and does nothing for 90 seconds. I know people don't like to hear this, but send out an MMJ or "content producer" at a fraction of the cost of a reporter to shoot, write, edit and feed a VOSOT, then move on to the next story. Each MMJ should be able to churn out 2-3 VOSOTs a day, and if you have 3, 4, 5 on staff, you're looking at 10 or more stories.
And let's face it, if we're shooting for the 18-35 demo, they have the attention span of wait what were we talking about again, oh look something shiny.
Speed Graphic
Active member
You can thank Magid and his ilk for the long slow fall of TV news. I have a copy of a study done in 1975 that outlines the groundwork they laid in the early 70s in the name of ratings and profits.
Here's an excerpt from the study. Sound familiar (especially 17, 18, 19, 33) ? If anyone wants a copy of the full study, shoot me an email and I'll send it.
Here's an excerpt from the study. Sound familiar (especially 17, 18, 19, 33) ? If anyone wants a copy of the full study, shoot me an email and I'll send it.
svp
Well-known member
Lenslinger,
I truly believe those who are interested in the packages, human interest stories, and wanting to know more about a story are the 50+ crowd. The older crowd certainly watches a lot of TV but they are NOT the crowd advertisers are looking for. That 18-35 crowd could care less about a good human interest story. That's why stations are quick to jump on any story that involves twitter or Facebook. It's sucks for photogs that enjoy telling good stories but, lets face it, news will change as the 18-35 crowd changes and that group just doesn't give a damn about in-depth news today.
I truly believe those who are interested in the packages, human interest stories, and wanting to know more about a story are the 50+ crowd. The older crowd certainly watches a lot of TV but they are NOT the crowd advertisers are looking for. That 18-35 crowd could care less about a good human interest story. That's why stations are quick to jump on any story that involves twitter or Facebook. It's sucks for photogs that enjoy telling good stories but, lets face it, news will change as the 18-35 crowd changes and that group just doesn't give a damn about in-depth news today.
Latin Lens
Well-known member
Offensive? Guess not in 1971
Kinda took offense to #24.....really?
"Minority group stories should be used only when really news; should be presented by a member of the minority group."
I think this practice is still in practice...can't tell you how many times I get pulled from my investigative duties because the person they want to talk to is Hispanic or might be Mexican...ridiculous industry tactic.
Kinda took offense to #24.....really?
"Minority group stories should be used only when really news; should be presented by a member of the minority group."
I think this practice is still in practice...can't tell you how many times I get pulled from my investigative duties because the person they want to talk to is Hispanic or might be Mexican...ridiculous industry tactic.
(De)volution of news
This is a topic I am very glad to see come up. It's been a slide for some time. Back in the early 90's as a producer we had constant Magid input. I hated it! Story count/pacing was and is the mantra... all at the cost of actual storytelling. Very sad. Scratch and sniff news rules in most local newsrooms. Surveillance video, car crashes and flame video have become the benchmark for what can make a news story. Forget stories. It's just the surface crap, easy pictures and on to the next shiny picture. As an industry we have lowered the expectation of viewers to the point that most local news is little more than background noise while the kids get ready for school or dinner prepared.
Speed graphic's 1971 memo was a large part of the "Eyewitness News" model. A stategic way to engage viewers easily and cheaply. It worked but hasn't evolved much. Now it's a formula repeated by so many stations with varied degrees of success. Fast moving images short, staccatto, irrelevant. Teases pointing at nothing of substance, franchises to scare mom or self aggrandise. Porn without nudity.
We underestimate our viewers, even insult them with the tripe we choose and refuse. On the streets people always say "why can't you show the positive?" In part we're so positive they'd rather find out about the "huge" heist at the chinese restraunt since it's easy and the perps are on grainy video... Or the color of Lindsey Lohan's panties in her latest drunken escapade. Who cares.
Here at the cradle of flash and trash god forbid we peel back any layers. We're happy to scratch the suface and offer it as depth to our viewers.
Regards,
Omar
At the risk of flammage below is a story that didn't make it.
Set up: A week after the election the baseball team, the taxpayers built a stadium for, had a food giveway to repair the PR blunder of booting 5 key players. It came as the city fathers, in the, midst of brutal contract negotiations "discovered" a surplus they were earmarking for slush funds. Video, nats all in the can. Flashes of the bigger story wrapped in seperate pretty live shots as if that concludes and legitimizes coverage... alas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dream Field Fiasco Now Fire Sale!
Predictable as the food giveaway held at the park, the Marlins are having their cyclical fire sale. The only problem, those of us who pay taxes under the astute stewardship of South Florida politicians are on the hook for a magnificent ballpark in Little Havana.
There was a soccer game at the park as 5 top Marlins players were forced to outsource their talents and paychecks overseas.
A corner of the park is named after Bobby Maduro. His stadium, just north of the new park is a legendary, long ago razed, Miami memory. The empty stands… a tree in the outfield.
Just East of both sites is the concrete hole that was the Miami Arena. Obsolete before the note was paid.
Some things never change in the Sunshine State. Our politics can ruin anything. Thank god the election didn’t come down to Florida. The white state, between red and blue, indecisive, superfluous.
Hubris is always blind. The nation looks at Washington and says the system is broken. In Florida our examples start at the stoop.
City leaders who backed the park scheme “find†a surplus as workers are asked for more concessions. If they care that little about the cops and firefighters they use as political fodder, what chance do we have?
This is a topic I am very glad to see come up. It's been a slide for some time. Back in the early 90's as a producer we had constant Magid input. I hated it! Story count/pacing was and is the mantra... all at the cost of actual storytelling. Very sad. Scratch and sniff news rules in most local newsrooms. Surveillance video, car crashes and flame video have become the benchmark for what can make a news story. Forget stories. It's just the surface crap, easy pictures and on to the next shiny picture. As an industry we have lowered the expectation of viewers to the point that most local news is little more than background noise while the kids get ready for school or dinner prepared.
Speed graphic's 1971 memo was a large part of the "Eyewitness News" model. A stategic way to engage viewers easily and cheaply. It worked but hasn't evolved much. Now it's a formula repeated by so many stations with varied degrees of success. Fast moving images short, staccatto, irrelevant. Teases pointing at nothing of substance, franchises to scare mom or self aggrandise. Porn without nudity.
We underestimate our viewers, even insult them with the tripe we choose and refuse. On the streets people always say "why can't you show the positive?" In part we're so positive they'd rather find out about the "huge" heist at the chinese restraunt since it's easy and the perps are on grainy video... Or the color of Lindsey Lohan's panties in her latest drunken escapade. Who cares.
Here at the cradle of flash and trash god forbid we peel back any layers. We're happy to scratch the suface and offer it as depth to our viewers.
Regards,
Omar
At the risk of flammage below is a story that didn't make it.
Set up: A week after the election the baseball team, the taxpayers built a stadium for, had a food giveway to repair the PR blunder of booting 5 key players. It came as the city fathers, in the, midst of brutal contract negotiations "discovered" a surplus they were earmarking for slush funds. Video, nats all in the can. Flashes of the bigger story wrapped in seperate pretty live shots as if that concludes and legitimizes coverage... alas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dream Field Fiasco Now Fire Sale!
Predictable as the food giveaway held at the park, the Marlins are having their cyclical fire sale. The only problem, those of us who pay taxes under the astute stewardship of South Florida politicians are on the hook for a magnificent ballpark in Little Havana.
There was a soccer game at the park as 5 top Marlins players were forced to outsource their talents and paychecks overseas.
A corner of the park is named after Bobby Maduro. His stadium, just north of the new park is a legendary, long ago razed, Miami memory. The empty stands… a tree in the outfield.
Just East of both sites is the concrete hole that was the Miami Arena. Obsolete before the note was paid.
Some things never change in the Sunshine State. Our politics can ruin anything. Thank god the election didn’t come down to Florida. The white state, between red and blue, indecisive, superfluous.
Hubris is always blind. The nation looks at Washington and says the system is broken. In Florida our examples start at the stoop.
City leaders who backed the park scheme “find†a surplus as workers are asked for more concessions. If they care that little about the cops and firefighters they use as political fodder, what chance do we have?
code20photog
Well-known member
I think the big problem, is that we all want different things. As photographers, we want the intricate story telling with great visuals and a solid hook. Management wants the most bang for their buck, often at the expense of quality, and the viewers, I think, want information pertinent, and fast.
Times change, and we're now in an instant gratification society, where people wants things fast, at their convenience, and wherever they may be. I honestly think that the days of deep story-telling pieces are going the way of the Dodo, at least in major markets. As an industry, we're targeting the 18-35 demo, and we often fail to really understand how that generation operates.
I don't know anyone under 30, and to be honest, few people under 40, who actually watch TV news. Why? Because A: it doesn't relate to them and B: they get their news off their phone or computer. I'm 42 years old, and I would say I get at least 80% of my news off the apps on my phone; CNN, NY Times, LA Times, local newspapers, MLB, ESPN etc. I just scroll over to that screen where I have those apps set up, and I can get the day's news wherever I am. I even have alerts set up that send me the top stories as they happen. Not to mention, I have a weather app on my front page that updates every 15 minutes, so I really don't need to wait for the 11pm news to know if I need an umbrella tomorrow.
Of course there is always going to be a need for news packages, for more in-depth or complicated stories, but I look at our newscast and I see 75% of the stuff we package, that could easily be a vosot without losing any of the pertinent information. Our ND likes us to take stories, and make them about a single person, how something will affect them, for instance, the fiscal cliff. "Bob Smith can barely afford food for his family, and with the looming fiscal cliff, he's worried that even 2% more out of his paycheck will mean he'll be hurting to keep a roof over his head" That kind of thing.
But, at least the younger people I know, they don't care about Bob Smith. They don't care about how anything is going to affect anyone but themselves. So, instead of storytelling, instead of these intricate pieces, it behooves us to put the facts out there, straightforward, quick and simple, and move on to the next story.
We're trying to swim upstream against the tide of technology and societal change. We can yell and scream all we want about what we *think* people want, we can fight to hold on to the old ways of doing things, and all it's going to do is get us further and further behind.
Times change, and we're now in an instant gratification society, where people wants things fast, at their convenience, and wherever they may be. I honestly think that the days of deep story-telling pieces are going the way of the Dodo, at least in major markets. As an industry, we're targeting the 18-35 demo, and we often fail to really understand how that generation operates.
I don't know anyone under 30, and to be honest, few people under 40, who actually watch TV news. Why? Because A: it doesn't relate to them and B: they get their news off their phone or computer. I'm 42 years old, and I would say I get at least 80% of my news off the apps on my phone; CNN, NY Times, LA Times, local newspapers, MLB, ESPN etc. I just scroll over to that screen where I have those apps set up, and I can get the day's news wherever I am. I even have alerts set up that send me the top stories as they happen. Not to mention, I have a weather app on my front page that updates every 15 minutes, so I really don't need to wait for the 11pm news to know if I need an umbrella tomorrow.
Of course there is always going to be a need for news packages, for more in-depth or complicated stories, but I look at our newscast and I see 75% of the stuff we package, that could easily be a vosot without losing any of the pertinent information. Our ND likes us to take stories, and make them about a single person, how something will affect them, for instance, the fiscal cliff. "Bob Smith can barely afford food for his family, and with the looming fiscal cliff, he's worried that even 2% more out of his paycheck will mean he'll be hurting to keep a roof over his head" That kind of thing.
But, at least the younger people I know, they don't care about Bob Smith. They don't care about how anything is going to affect anyone but themselves. So, instead of storytelling, instead of these intricate pieces, it behooves us to put the facts out there, straightforward, quick and simple, and move on to the next story.
We're trying to swim upstream against the tide of technology and societal change. We can yell and scream all we want about what we *think* people want, we can fight to hold on to the old ways of doing things, and all it's going to do is get us further and further behind.
svp
Well-known member
Excellent post Code20photog. I agree. You're right, the demo group today only cares about how it affects them. They could care less about Bob Smith so the days of personalizing stories is dwindling. Instead, a better way to communicate to this group may be, essentially, a 1 minute standup with the reporter making references to "you" and including graphics. The viewer is the subject of the story, not some random person you personilze it around. Who says you need interviews??? The information is all that matters. As a photog, I prefer doing great personalized stories that are visual and in depth. But, in this business, does it really matter if nobody is watching???
Speed Graphic
Active member
Before you piss all over the under-30s over how dare they not watch TV news...first of all, ask yourself if you are even watching your station's product? If you can't stand what makes air, even knowing what raw meat went into the sausage...why do you think someone under the age of 30 is going to bother?
And two, you are asking a generation saddled with enormous college loans thanks to the mantra "everyone goes to college no matter what" whom can't even afford to put down roots in their communities to care about what goes on around them. There was a study done a few years ago that shows renters do not participate in civic engagement to the degree that long-time residents do. And it does affect TV news since if a population isn't going to be in one place very long, they are not going to bother to engage within the community (and watch TV to find out what is going on).
And two, you are asking a generation saddled with enormous college loans thanks to the mantra "everyone goes to college no matter what" whom can't even afford to put down roots in their communities to care about what goes on around them. There was a study done a few years ago that shows renters do not participate in civic engagement to the degree that long-time residents do. And it does affect TV news since if a population isn't going to be in one place very long, they are not going to bother to engage within the community (and watch TV to find out what is going on).