Originally posted by Natural Born Stringer:
Real reporting? Could you define this please? Because I don't think I've seen this done live by traditional crews either.
Everytime you say something like this, it does three things:
First, it shows you still refuse to believe the broadcast news world is any different than the stations you're stringing for.
Second, it's an incredibly inaccurate assumption that does nothing to help your arguments. Why should we listen to someone's opinion when they constantly and inadvertently compare work I do to a poor output market? You talk a lot about personal attacks -- insulting others' hard work by claiming all of it is awful without putting forth the effort to see what else is out there makes no sense.
Third -- and probably most important -- it contradicts everything you say about WKRN and KRON's story quality. You're laying down a blanketed statement about the news business as a whole, and then directly contradicting it by claiming WKRN and KRON are putting out "quality."
When we point out how bad stories coming from WKRN and KRON are that you start getting all up-in-arms. Then, you start going on and on about how broadcast news sucks. The only frame of reference you have is
your own market. That's what you constantly refer to.
The vicious cycle starts again, and nothing's accomplished.
I'm saying this in all seriousness: try to view more stories that
aren't in your own market. You were quick to order MR's paid-advertisement OMB/VJ DVD. Have you ever been as quick to check out one of the annual NPPA DVDs?
Originally posted by Natural Born Stringer:
Then I'd look at VJ again - only this time don't think OMB. Think interchangeable roles.
Just as you claim we're "failing" to see the supposedly-"interchangeable" roles of the OMB/VJ, you're failing to see what's really going on. This has
already been proven long ago: Neil Orne. Remember? He made a post in his blog about how his camera was taken away because he was "not producing enough stories."
What does this show?
1. WKRN and KRON are using this "system" in an attempt to save money: doing more with less. People who are leaving their stations are not replaced.
2. The system is already failing at the only two stations using it. It's already failed at NY1,
ten years after its implementation. If "up and coming technology we must adapt to" is really worth it, why didn't they stick with the OMB/VJ system? If
anything, NY1 should be the
flagship for the OMB/VJ model. Instead, it abandoned the idea.
3. OMB/VJs are
not given any more time to do stories now than they were before this "system" was implemented. They're still expected to turn stories on a daily basis. There's no such thing as 1.5 stories per week. As a matter of fact (and I think reporters will agree with me), there's hardly
any stories in a local news market that will keep their timeliness if you're only working on it for that week.
4. "Failure Rate" is a buzzword for "news judgement," something every newsroom should
already have.
5. Most importantly, WKRN and KRON are
not interested in "interchangeability." They do not swap out OMB/VJs between stories. They don't see "more resources," they see "more stories." There's a difference.
Originally posted by Natural Born Stringer:
Now expand your horizon past your TV set. Look instead to your computer, because that's where your audience went. They already got their news, weather and sports from the web while they were at work and by 6pm they are home with the TV on, but they are watching something else.
This is wrong. Ever look at ratings when Oprah's the lead-in?
Originally posted by Natural Born Stringer:
It also gives you a way to simultaneously reach the viewer at home and the viewer at work.
If folks are going to the internet for their news instead of television, how did you type this sentence without knowing it contradicted another statement you typed earlier?
As far as different outlets go, many stations across the United States have been integrating their websites with their local
television broadcast news for years. This is nothing new. Webcasting (or "hypercasting," as another buzzword-prone MR likes to call it) is still
very much in its infancy. A station trying to webcast entire productions -- especially to a large number of viewers -- must have the ability to utilize
incredible amounts of bandwidth. That's the first thing stopping webcasting from becoming a reality.
Originally posted by Natural Born Stringer:
On Demand will be the next big thing.
"On Demand" has been around since VCRs were fitted with record buttons.
Finally, please dispense with the "personal attack" response just because I disagree with you. It's getting a little old.
[ December 12, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Chicago Dog ]
