Emmys

[<Chuck Dennis>]

I was wondering what it takes to get "nominated" for an emmy ? I wasn't even expecting to win.

I shot all the "exclusive" video of the Palmdale kidnapped girls that were rescued here in CA last august.

This video went around the world.

Most of my co-workers said I should enter, so I did, (spotnews of the year).

LOL.... It didn't even get nominated in my region.

Some fires and some " naked hiker " story were nominated. Don't get me wrong, if I shot bad pics then fine, no problem I'll take my lumps and go home, but most of you SAW the pics. I was about 1 min behind the shooting of the bad guy.

CNN, Larry King Live, Oprah, 48 Hours, BBC and more. I didn't see one story about the fires OR (lol) the naked hiker even on the feeds.

One thing I did notice...... alot of the same names were listed through-out all the entries in all the catagories.

I have only entered two contests in all the 15 years I have been shooting and won on one of them.

No sour grapes here, REALLY !!!..... I was just wondering what it takes. LOL !!!

That's my rant.

 

[Lensmith]

Chuck,

I and many others have asked the same question. I don't think there is a good answer. It all comes down to the personal taste of those who make the decision. Many times those same people have no idea what really went into getting the shots or the story. They may be judging it more on their personal "wow" factor instead of a more informed, experienced viewpoint.

A reporter friend of mine did a throw away story once that some how, some way, got nominated AND won a regional Emmy. His acceptance speech was what I considered a classic. As he was handed his statue he turned to the mic and said "this story is probably the worst piece of junk I've ever produced" and still didn't understand how it deserved to win anything.

John Deutzman was the reporter. John Deutzman remains one of the most honest individuals I've ever worked with ;o)

 

[<Chuck Dennis>]

John:

That's pretty good....Very honest man he is !!!

Good to know you are still well.

Some co-workers also said regarding contests, "it's all relative and also has to do with personal taste".

Thanks John
Chuck

 

[Lil' Photog]

I've judged the Emmy's before. If you aren't familiar to the process they sit ton of people in a room and you watch each story and then vote 0-5 on a number of catagories.

I did TV news photrgraphy. There were people in the room that knew nothing about shooting. There were some that thought they knew stuff about TV news photography, and there were far fewer who actually knew the craft.

Question: What did you enter? Just the shot or a package using your video?

 

[<X-Man>]

Emmy, as well as AP and NPPA, contest judging will vary from region to region. Even the rules and catagories are different for Emmy and AP.

I think you've answered your own question in your post.

"I shot all the "exclusive" video of the Palmdale kidnapped girls that were rescued here in CA last august."

I don't know of any contest that gives points for "exclusive" video.

"I was about 1 min behind the shooting of the bad guy."

In spot news contests being "1 min behind" on a big story rarely wins. Being in the middle of a small story, and telling it well, can win.

"..CNN, Larry King Live, Oprah, 48 Hours, BBC and more."

Just like "exclusive", judges don't care if the rest of world used your video. Except that one of these programs may have re-cut your video, added some other resources, and told the story better then your entry.

Take a step back and look at your entry. Was it good story telling? If you think this is a good story, enter it in other contest and see what those judges think.

 

[<Magenta>]

X-MAN, you are wrong, very wrong !!!! You do not know what it took to be "one minute behind the bad guy " and how can someone else re-cut his video to tell the story better than he did ?? You do not know anything about this man's story telling abilities but you just "assuming".

You see "X-MAN", in my tread about the NPPA on this website , you are just the type of person I speak about , and it's people like you that turns me off in a minute.

 

[D.St.]

I helped judge the Sports Reporting Emmys for one of the regions in the west last year. I was the only sporto in the group (and that's only when the rest of them are off).

In this particular contest, we too rated the pieces on a 1 to 5 scale. The pieces came from an NFL team's production company, a local affiliate from a big market in the region, a few small market entries, and an entry from a grad student at a college in the region.

When making my decision, I took into consideration 3 things:

1) How well the story was executed(ie, use of video, sound, writing)
2) How good the story looked relative to the resources of the situation
3) What made this story standout from stories I'd seen on similar subjects.

There were pieces in the contest that, technolgically, rivaled ESPN. There were pieces that had a who's who of sports personalities. There were pieces with standups from the sidelines of a few very important NFL and MLB games.

The piece that received the highest points was a NAT sound piece that followed around several fans in several different places, all watching game 7 of the World Series. There wasn't one interview with an athlete, or snazzy standup from a sidelines, or one AVID effect. The piece showed fans in a bar, at the game, and outside the game all cheering and yelling for their team. In fact, there was only one shot of the game.

The reason we all chose this piece is because the it was the most effective use of the TV medium to convey the story the producer(s) were trying to get across. Sure the production quality in and of itself was more impressive from the NFL team, but the stories they sent sucked.

So the moral of the story is the stories that most effectively tell the story win, regardless of the circumstances surrounding them.

 

[<X-Man>]

Magenta

What did I say that was wrong?

You say..."You do not know what it took to be "one minute behind the bad guy"" I don't know and I don't care. I don't know of any contest for being one minute behind the bad guy.

You ask..." and how can someone else re-cut his video to tell the story better than he did ??"
Easily, it happens everyday with video that is sent to networks and/or regional feeds. But I didn't say that it had happened in this case. I said that it MAY have happened. That is a risk when entering stories that feature nationaly used video. You are competing with other stories as well as the memories of the judges, who MAY have seen a similar story that MAY have been better.

Magenta, you wrote..."You do not know anything about this man's story telling abilities but you just "assuming"." I didn't "assume" anything, I didn't question his story telling abilities, I suggested that he take a second look at his story and enter it in other contest to see how it does.

So, what did I write that was wrong?

 

[Noozer]

One of our main anchors worked at a station that judged Emmy entries. She said that a bunch of people would sit in a room, order pizza and watch the stories. The problem was that no one took it seriously. People socialized a lot and stories weren't watched all the way through. It definitely changed her attitude about the "prestige" of winning an Emmy.

I'm not saying this casual judging happens a lot. There are obviously those who do take it seriously. But hearing that made me think. Who is judging these things? Are they experienced enough to know what's good and what isn't?

 

[<Guilty>]

Listen, these days judgung emmys are a joke. Back in the ealy 80's as far as I can remember there were real serious emmy judges(ers) but during the mid 90's the whole emmy thing became a joke. I know what I am saying because I am a guilty emmy judge.
I was asked to be an emmy judge once and I was told " c'mon over man , there's going to be pizza, food , and drinks". Obviously, when the judging started I was totally fatiged and wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible.
To make matters worse, there was a story from a reporter in the said market that I was not really fond off and a piece from her was nominated for an emmy ..... and guess who was one of the judges judging her piece ? Obviously I gave her piece a "3" so she probably did not win that emmy.
To make matters worse , the other judges would only watch a couple of minutes of a story and then say "take it out.........next"
Now how can anyone take this emmy thing seriously when you have people like me judging those things ?

 

[<Guilty>]

CORRECTION !!!

There was a piece from a former reporter that used to work in the market where the judging was being held.

 

[<David Sussman>]

Chuck,

I don't know if I ever saw your story or any of the video associated with it. However, I'd like to offer some insight into the judging process. When I judge, the magnitude of the topic doesn't really play into the picture for me. The points get generated by the level of commitment, creativity and storytelling from the entrant regardless of the subject matter. There is no question that getting "the shot" in a spot news situation is crucial to the whole story but it's not everything. The rest of the story has to be excellent, not just part of it. It is possible that your whole story was excellent yet it didn't get nominated. Judging is very subjective.

Awards are nice when they come your way but sometimes they don't - even for the good stories. When we enter contests we subject ourselves the subjective nature of judging.

As for the person who claimed to be guilty of bad judging.... please don't judge any more.

 

[<Chuck Dennis>]

Thank You all for the input afforded this post.

It would seem to me that the catagory "Spot News" would be judged just that. It was a good piece. First time the "Amber Alert" system was used by the state of Calif. Victims saved, bad guy dead, and all go home safe.

The funny thing about all this is, the reporter that fronted this PKG WON an award for the piece.

I really just don't get it.(LOL)

Let's just chalk this up to experience.

Thanks again people for the input.
Chuck