"Massive" ABC cuts coming...

prosheditor said:
I've known about the preditor hybrid term for a few years. That and must work as a local, company will not pay for travel or hotel. I just added the sh insert to include shooting in that term. As I stated earlier, the producer (field producer lite) part applies to me because I've had to play the roll of a formal (sit down) and ENG (on the go) interviewer, shooter, editor as a single unit, but no writing like a real producer might do. I've seen the preditor term being incorrectly used on reality job boards because they are wanting field producer/shooters (prooters) and not editing. What they'll sometimes do is send the producer with a DV camera to shoot the interview part and then hire a real shooter(s) to do the single or multi-camera location work. Then all editing is done at their facility wherever that may be.


But it's not taking the job for significantly less money and undercutting just to get the work, that I understand. Like a said in a much earlier post, they need to send whatever it takes to get it done correctly, no more and no less. Multiple duties can be done with fewer people but there are and should be limits before efficiency and quality suffers. The decision makers are going to have to have a clear message of this fact sent to them. I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but I'm willing to do a little extra work for the right amount of pay.
Click to expand...

I don't knock you for taking the work.
Not all shoots need a full crew.
I wouldn't offer those services to anyone as an alternative to a real crew though.
If that's what the client is demanding and you can get agreeable terms, great.
But like you said, the position is limited in scope because no one person can effectively do those multiple positions on a full-scale challenging shoot.
 
grinner said:
Few do.
Unions are for lazy folks who would rather pay dues for secuity than compete or work for it. Hence the low hourly rates involved.
I can tell ya here in STL, union wages pay less than 30 bucks an hour for shooting.. .
Click to expand...

The 30 bucks an hour is most likely for a FULL TIME job that includes paid vacation, medical, dental, life insurance , 401K or maybe a traditional pension.

That all added up is far more than 30 dollars an hour.

Unions are not perfect as I've always said, but taken away, pay scales in general across the board will diminish. Think the hardest worker is going to make the most money. Not always. Not even in a non-union shop.

Some one explain to me why in the bigger, non union (mostly southern) markets, the pay scale is less than the northern markets. The bigger the market, the better the pay should be. Yes, I've heard all of the sunshine pay theories, but there must be more to it than that. Surely the ad rates are higher in a larger market, so where is the money going? All to a bigger profit margins?

Unions create a base wage, and working conditions to level the playing field.
 
That's not a validation of your model, that's the reality of only having one 1/2 hour newscast a day to provide content for. ABC will likely buy CNN tech support in the future... providing only on-air staff for anything jointly staffed currently, especially things like WH and Capitol lives.

I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see. CBS is next.
 
This thread has turned into a real ****storm.

You know, the times I've had an audio guy it's been nice to have one less thing to worry about. There are times they come in pretty handy as well. For the most part, I would say that news guys can get along just fine without one. It's one of those things that can allow you to possibly get just a little bit better video if you don't have to screw with audio, I suppose...
 
I feel like I’m walking into a S*** storm here but I have comment/question because I’m really truly trying to expand my knowledge of this business. (there are still people that show up here and attempt to do that) I tried to read nearly every reasonable post and understand.

I’m a young guy, sort of an “up and comer”. In the last 2.5 years at WAVY I’ve seen my fair share of network operations in the field. I could never possibly understand the grand scheme of things without being a part of it. I haven’t seen the kind of crews these pictures reveal but I’ve always seen an excessive amount of equipment to pull off a live shot at the near quality that our best guys pull off with a 1 man crew, our XD’s, a couple of lights and 10 -15 min. I’ve always respected network lighting, it usually beautiful. But at the end of the day is all of that really necessary and is it cost effective? I’ve seen some really great live shots and interviews just using natural light and some with 2- 3 lights and just a little time.

In a network discussion I’d consider myself as much of a viewer as I would a professional in the field. Sort of half and half.

Someone mentioned content being king. I agree 100%. I try to watch network stories and it is very hard. Usually, the only thing that is captivating are the interviews. The stories themselves are usually a hodge podge of trash (I don’t know how to spell that). The editing is terrible, the storytelling is mediocre, the video half the time looks like they are shot with home video cameras. (usually from affiliates or sometimes it is just that.. home video)

Man, I love it when a great Steve Hartman or Bob Dotson story hits the air, that’s what network news should be. On the outside, I don’t think the failures have much to do with you folks in the field, it seems to come from the entire model itself and the content produced. Sometimes it just seems like there are too many people putting their hands on a story.

I pay close attention to national awards because I’m always looking for great work to learn from. When I compare the large market work vs. network most of the time it isn’t even close in quality of storytelling. Large markets stories are top notch and they seem to do twice the job with half the crew. I just can never understand why that is? Network stories as a whole should be unflappable and I rarely see that.

The only thing I can figure is there are too many hands involved in the story. When I think of the network operation, I assume this on any given story…. At least 2 photogs contribute + affialte vids, a field producer writes> the reporter adds their flavor> EP oversees the story> Editor grabs all the vids and edits. I assume at least 6 people have hands on any given story and the end product is worse than a reporter photog team. Along that route to the air someone either lacks skill or is having a bad day. I think that is what some of these local guys are getting at. I’m not trying to insult the work anyone does in network or freelance. I’m simply telling you about the product that I see hit the airwaves. To a lot folks it seems like a really big production with not much of a pay off.

My last question… what is it about the network model that it cannot operate similar to the old fashioned reporter photographer team on a typical shoot?
I’m not trying to ruffle up any feathers here. I really curious about this and I always have been. This is just what I see on the outside and I’m not alone. I’m politely asking someone to explain this to me cause I don’t understand… be nice.
 
MMrozinski, you've answered your own questions here.

"But at the end of the day is all of that really necessary and is it cost effective?"

In the past, network news was a cash cow, therefore they could afford to spend anything they wanted to in order to make the product as good as possible. If that meant spending twice the money to make a live shot look 10% better, so be it.

The economics has changed. Networks can't afford to chase the ideal anymore, which is why they're changing to what can be considered a local news model, with smaller crews and VJs.

I'm not going to address your comments on the quality of storytelling at the network vs. the locals...as I've said before, there's great work and terrible work coming from both, and to paint anything with the broad strokes you use is silly.
 
AKinDC said:
I'm not going to address your comments on the quality of storytelling at the network vs. the locals...as I've said before, there's great work and terrible work coming from both, and to paint anything with the broad strokes you use is silly.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right about that. I guess I was implying that I've always felt the network level should be held to a much higher standard regarding all elements of news. Kind of like the making to from the NCAA to the NFL. Only the elite. That is not the case.

So are you saying that there are too many hands on the story? is that a correct assumption?
 
CBS Sunday Morning is the network equivalent to "good local news story telling." I know which I prefer.
 
There are so many misconceptions regarding network news shooting it's hard to know where to start to set the story straight.

Most current network news stories are shot by any number of different people. It's one crew in Boston, another in DC, maybe some file footage. It's not as if they use the same crew -- most of the time anyway -- to shoot the entire story. That used to happen a long time ago and the consistency in the production was terrific. The stories looked great. Not anymore. Now many of the interviews are speaker phone interviews. There are no correspondents there. The interviewee is looking at a cell phone taped to a light stand, or maybe they look at an office secretary. But not at a reporter. The reporter is back in New York.

The network news pieces, by and large, are a hodge podge of elements. They look the way they do because the nets are in full cost cutting mode.

As for live shots being done better with no lights or improper lights. Well, you're showing how green you are. A great live shot is all about control. You hang a silk overhead to stop the harsh sun from casting strong shadows on the reporter's face. You hit them with two big HMIs to bring their face back up to the intensity of the light falling on the background. Maybe you hang a smaller HMI as a backlight on a boom arm. As the sun moves across the sky it changes things. You adapt to that ever-changing light. Anyone who shoots these things knows that the key is control. And you maximize control with the proper tools. Can you get by without them? Of course you can. People do it all the time. But when you have them, when you know how to use them and why you use them, then you are creating production VALUE. Value -- something added. The photographer actually adds to the aesthetic by using his tools and his skills to enhance the image he is creating.

There's nothing wrong, nothing to feel guilty about when you are able to and capable of adding value to the production.
 
One of the big frustrations of shooting for a network nowadays is no matter how much work you put into a story every now and then guy who shot that out of town element is going to screw you, either because he doesn't have the training to do a good job or because its not his story and he just doesn't care.

Once apon a time every show had it's own style book, a list of looks and shot sizes for different elements.
Now you ask a producer how they want a shoot to look for their show and they say "In focus, not blue and could you use a tripod for some of it?" Like they are optional extras.

I think management are so obsessed with saving money they don't see what it's costing them by cheapening the end product.
 
couryhouse said:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-digital-journo1-2010mar01,0,1378757.story

yet... another article
Click to expand...

From the above article:
That sentiment is shared by many ABC staffers, who declined to be quoted by name for fear of losing their jobs. They fret that the expectations being put on digital journalists are unrealistic.

ABC News President David Westin said the network will still cover the majority of stories with a producer, correspondent, camera operator and sound engineer that make up the traditional four-person crew, particularly newsmaker interviews with politicians and celebrities. But he argued that digital journalism actually gives reporters more control over their stories.

"This is a way to maintain or enhance our editorial footprint and get to the stories that are really important, and in some cases, do it in a more compelling way," he said. "In my heart of hearts, this is really about the journalism, not the money."
Click to expand...
Anybody . . . anybody? Give me a break. This comes from a man with top executive pay and more than likely a nice golden parachute, if it comes to that. Let's see how he likes his corporate life without his secretary, layers of admins and other underlings. Typical puppeteer. :rolleyes:
 
iHD said:
This comment is something that some photogs on this board will just never understand. .
Click to expand...

Given a full complement of gear for a live shot, a good photog is going to make it look better than a live shot without the gear 99% of the time.
Do you understand that? It's one thing to argue it's not cost effective, but if you really think good HMIs, scrims, umbrellas etc. make no difference in a shot, you're just deluding yourself.
 
iHD said:
If you get a chance, pay attention to network live shots from the White House when it gets dark. Particuarly, pay attention to Fox News. They light with HMI's during the day but the last few live shots are at night. Usually, Major Garrett looks blue because, instead of breaking down the HMI's and putting up tungstens for those shots, they just use the HMI's but apparently care more about the color of the White House background more than the color of Major Garrett. It looks pretty bad. Fox News is not alone in this either. I guess all that excess is just too much to tear down in a timely manner to get the right lights up for the night shots.
Click to expand...
I agree that the right base lighting should be used if it's not a time issue, like with breaking news, etc.. But it seems the obvious and simple solution would be to gel the HMIs with some CTO to warm them up to 3200K. How hard is that?
 
You're right, you've made your point clearly.
Every local news guy with minimal equipment is better then a network guy with full gear.
Thanks for the education!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top