VJ in DC
- Thread starter AKinDC
- Start date
punky cameraman
Well-known member
This is a great opportunity!
For WTTG, WRC and WJLA to take out a competator.
I have heard for years that there is not enough ad revenue to support four five or even six
local tv newsrooms, i guess its time for D.C. to loose one.
I would hope the folks at the above stations would be professional but spare all these new
Gannett Vj's help and assistance.
This is survival of the fittest, Gannett needs to go away.
punky
For WTTG, WRC and WJLA to take out a competator.
I have heard for years that there is not enough ad revenue to support four five or even six
local tv newsrooms, i guess its time for D.C. to loose one.
I would hope the folks at the above stations would be professional but spare all these new
Gannett Vj's help and assistance.
This is survival of the fittest, Gannett needs to go away.
punky
Layoffs, furloughs, reduced staffs, more duties less pay...everyday I'm more happy that I made the move to working for the federal government. It's not the sexiest job, but there are fun projects occasionally. On the plus side it pays the bills, provides good benefits, and most importantly is very stable and secure. Also, I get off at 3:00 everyday and get home in plenty of time to hang out with my kids, see my wife, and ride my mountain bike.
Lensmith
Member
This move is another clear indication that big companies, based on a printing press, are not long for this world. Even if they have a broadcast division as part of their make-up.
One of the sad truths in the corporate world is, even if your own small part of the business is doing better than others, whatever profits or gains you make, must also make up for other losses elsewhere. Tribune and Gannett are suffering from what many consumers also suffer from. Too much debt. It has come time to pay the piper.
Broadcast corporations, like any business today, are also feeling the pinch. But they don't have to worry about dying print divisions scattered around the country which suck off profit. Think of a drowning man grabbing onto someone close by who they will take down with them in the end. That's what's happening here.
The VJ move is no surprise. Predicted by many of us years ago. It's a move to put off the inevitable. That is not meant to insult those who work for those companies. It's a typical death-throes move of a company looking to do anything it can to stay afloat just a little longer. Going completely VJ isn't going to become the norm any more than being put on a respirator is doing to be the norm for all human beings. It's one of the final stages in an economic downfall for some business's.
Going completely VJ is an easy way to encourage employees to leave a company without firing them. As many have said for some time, the VJ plan has nothing to do with quality or "better". It's about the bottom line. What those in charge forget is the specific product their business is based on. It's not money. Detroit forgot this fact. So have many print and broadcast news outlets. Some will be able to survive these tough times. Many others will not. Where they stand on the technology curve combined with their existing debt and ability to survive this economic downturn will, without a doubt, thin the herd. But frankly that's been needed for some time.
One of the sad truths in the corporate world is, even if your own small part of the business is doing better than others, whatever profits or gains you make, must also make up for other losses elsewhere. Tribune and Gannett are suffering from what many consumers also suffer from. Too much debt. It has come time to pay the piper.
Broadcast corporations, like any business today, are also feeling the pinch. But they don't have to worry about dying print divisions scattered around the country which suck off profit. Think of a drowning man grabbing onto someone close by who they will take down with them in the end. That's what's happening here.
The VJ move is no surprise. Predicted by many of us years ago. It's a move to put off the inevitable. That is not meant to insult those who work for those companies. It's a typical death-throes move of a company looking to do anything it can to stay afloat just a little longer. Going completely VJ isn't going to become the norm any more than being put on a respirator is doing to be the norm for all human beings. It's one of the final stages in an economic downfall for some business's.
Going completely VJ is an easy way to encourage employees to leave a company without firing them. As many have said for some time, the VJ plan has nothing to do with quality or "better". It's about the bottom line. What those in charge forget is the specific product their business is based on. It's not money. Detroit forgot this fact. So have many print and broadcast news outlets. Some will be able to survive these tough times. Many others will not. Where they stand on the technology curve combined with their existing debt and ability to survive this economic downturn will, without a doubt, thin the herd. But frankly that's been needed for some time.
Nino Giannotti
Well-known member
You hit the nail right on the head John. The financial problems that many companies are facing today are not directly related to the drop in business, although that’s the symptom but not the fatal disease. Every company has a contingency in place to deal with hard times; this is what they teach you in business school. A debt free company can deal with as much as a 50% drop in business and still stay afloat but corporations like the Tribune have a one billion dollars payment coming due and no money there. These companies were bought out by magnate investors who used the actual purchase, the company itself, as collateral, so here you have a debt free successful company that suddenly is up to their neck in debt. Now their profits no longer goes into their operating capital or rainy days funds but is diverted by the new owners into other ventures or into their pockets. Repayments of these loans are based on the company optimum performance, the moment that there’s even a slight drop in business the company can not meet the new debt and here comes bankruptcy. On the other side of the coin you have the financial institutions that as a consequence are not receiving payment and they are in trouble. Sound familiar? And who will pay for all this? How about a 700 billion bailout by the taxpayers. Talking about getting shafted twice, first you lose your job then you have to pay taxes to bails out the wealthy bastards that got you in the unemployment line in the first place. Isn’t unchecked capitalism a wonderful thing?
Talking about conversion to VJ? These are the same managers that got into this mess in the first place, do you think that they are smart enough to make decisions on the future of their companies. VJ moves are nothing more than life preservers to stay afloat and hoping that rescue will come form somewhere. What's next? Citizen News, trying to get material for free, probably in exchange for meals and credits. Craiglist here comes the newspaper's CJ wanted ads, Rosenblum already paved the way.
Talking about conversion to VJ? These are the same managers that got into this mess in the first place, do you think that they are smart enough to make decisions on the future of their companies. VJ moves are nothing more than life preservers to stay afloat and hoping that rescue will come form somewhere. What's next? Citizen News, trying to get material for free, probably in exchange for meals and credits. Craiglist here comes the newspaper's CJ wanted ads, Rosenblum already paved the way.
AlexLucas
PRO user
Thank you for that.
Just because a person wears a suit, and flies in a corporate jet doesn't actually mean that they have a brain in their head about running a company.
I could get an MBA in two years, would I be qualified to run Tribune?
Hell no.
I had people tell me for years, literal years, that I needed to get into the 'house flipping' business, and I kept telling them that 'my grandfather taught me everything I needed to know from the Great Depression.' I'd ask them all the same thing:
'So what happens when the overvalued market adjusts back (and it will, violently) and you have three houses under your name, worth literally half a million dollars, and they're worth half as much?'
The only answer is, 'that's not going to happen.'
Well, welcome to the whole world, people. IT HAPPENED.
It happened to everyone that bought overvalued, and thought that selling properties was the way to make money, instead of building value, and giving earnings and dividends.
I've been telling people about this thing coming for three freakin' years.
That the suits and idiots were killing us.
All I got was flack from people, and denial about the industry.
I kept saying this, over and over:
"Get your skills up. Buy some of your own equipment. Get a 'B' plan together, because the people calling the shots are running everything on spec."
....and running on spec was what caused the last THREE market crashes.
Short of Nino, and anyone under the age of fifty, I question everyone else's opinion around here about the future.
Guys, the future has been written in the past. You only need to look back, to see forward.
Now get a plan together.
jumpkutz
PRO user
We had layoffs this week. Two editors and the sports director. Our chief steward (we're AFTRA), who'd recently been demoted from weekday a.m. co-anchor to weekday reporter, also recently departed. He's now doing PR for the local teaching/Level 1 trauma hospital.
Almost immediately, our ND began running a spot in our newscasts for a "video journalist/reporter," even though our contract has language against one man bands. This was clearly done to test the resolve of the union, not to replace the departed reporter. When this was brought to his attention by the new chief steward, he called in the GM, who feigned ignorance of the terms contained in the document containing his signature. They promised to pull the ad, but did not immediately do so, citing the vacation absence of the person able to do so. The GM then said he'll be demanding one man bands during the next contract negotiation. We also had to file a grievance over the new OSHA safety vest rules applying to reporters and photographers while covering stories on federal highways. The vests the company supplied after the unfortunate death of a reporter at one of our sister stations did not meet the OSHA standards set forth in the new law.
Again, the ND feigned ignorance, even though one of our members had pointed out the illegal vests when corporate issued new safety guidelines concerning all roadway news operations before the November 24th deadline.
What's my point? Simply this. That most TV managers don't know or don't care, or both, about what we do and how we do it. It doesn't matter that, in the case of our station, we've won numerous national and state photography awards over the years. To them, we're just a bunch of camera monkeys who drive the union, bust their balls and cost them money. They'd love to see us all go away, replaced by kids so desperate to work in TV, they'll do it all until they burn up like a cheap firecracker. They'd deny all this, of course, if forced to admit it, but their actions scream so much louder than their words, it's infuriating. No more engineering help on live shots. Use this cheap little pissant camera designed for indie film producers on a budget. Learn this tapeless format that won't work with anyone else's. Figure out this non-linear editing system with some cursory training from the chief photographer. Just use that old DVC Pro camera/laptop that doesn't work very good anymore for that assignment. No? OK, I'll just get some kid from a smaller market that wants to kill himself.
I have no delusions that some form of one man band will find it's way to our newsroom. The only question is how many of us still doing it "the old fashioned way" are we gonna be able to protect. The current economic climate is an accelerant, an excuse for the managers deseperately trying to meet their shrinking budgets
I agree with many of you that the VJ experiment is doomed to failure. Many of you have already witnessed it. The skill set required to succeed at a high level is too difficult and complex for the average human being. How many of the reporters you have worked with want do your job and theirs? How many of us could do their job well enough, and ours, to keep most ND's happy? The new and various disseminating platforms are irrevelant....however it's delivered, it's still a factual mini-movie. One human being can only produce so much content. The only question is who will survive?
At this point, I don't know if I will be one of them. If forced to decide whether or not to become a one man band, I don't know what I'll do. Until then, I'm praying that I don't have to make that decsion...and that no more of my friends lose their jobs.
And let's stop pretending the VJ model is something new. It's not. There have always been one man bands and cheaper cameras. Companies have just decided it's too expensive to continue using two people and real news cameras. Just please stop calling one man bands video journalists or backpack journalists or multimedia journalists or lens mules or whatever.
They're one man bands. No more, no less. If they want to do it all, fine. Just be prepared for a short career.
Almost immediately, our ND began running a spot in our newscasts for a "video journalist/reporter," even though our contract has language against one man bands. This was clearly done to test the resolve of the union, not to replace the departed reporter. When this was brought to his attention by the new chief steward, he called in the GM, who feigned ignorance of the terms contained in the document containing his signature. They promised to pull the ad, but did not immediately do so, citing the vacation absence of the person able to do so. The GM then said he'll be demanding one man bands during the next contract negotiation. We also had to file a grievance over the new OSHA safety vest rules applying to reporters and photographers while covering stories on federal highways. The vests the company supplied after the unfortunate death of a reporter at one of our sister stations did not meet the OSHA standards set forth in the new law.
Again, the ND feigned ignorance, even though one of our members had pointed out the illegal vests when corporate issued new safety guidelines concerning all roadway news operations before the November 24th deadline.
What's my point? Simply this. That most TV managers don't know or don't care, or both, about what we do and how we do it. It doesn't matter that, in the case of our station, we've won numerous national and state photography awards over the years. To them, we're just a bunch of camera monkeys who drive the union, bust their balls and cost them money. They'd love to see us all go away, replaced by kids so desperate to work in TV, they'll do it all until they burn up like a cheap firecracker. They'd deny all this, of course, if forced to admit it, but their actions scream so much louder than their words, it's infuriating. No more engineering help on live shots. Use this cheap little pissant camera designed for indie film producers on a budget. Learn this tapeless format that won't work with anyone else's. Figure out this non-linear editing system with some cursory training from the chief photographer. Just use that old DVC Pro camera/laptop that doesn't work very good anymore for that assignment. No? OK, I'll just get some kid from a smaller market that wants to kill himself.
I have no delusions that some form of one man band will find it's way to our newsroom. The only question is how many of us still doing it "the old fashioned way" are we gonna be able to protect. The current economic climate is an accelerant, an excuse for the managers deseperately trying to meet their shrinking budgets
I agree with many of you that the VJ experiment is doomed to failure. Many of you have already witnessed it. The skill set required to succeed at a high level is too difficult and complex for the average human being. How many of the reporters you have worked with want do your job and theirs? How many of us could do their job well enough, and ours, to keep most ND's happy? The new and various disseminating platforms are irrevelant....however it's delivered, it's still a factual mini-movie. One human being can only produce so much content. The only question is who will survive?
At this point, I don't know if I will be one of them. If forced to decide whether or not to become a one man band, I don't know what I'll do. Until then, I'm praying that I don't have to make that decsion...and that no more of my friends lose their jobs.
And let's stop pretending the VJ model is something new. It's not. There have always been one man bands and cheaper cameras. Companies have just decided it's too expensive to continue using two people and real news cameras. Just please stop calling one man bands video journalists or backpack journalists or multimedia journalists or lens mules or whatever.
They're one man bands. No more, no less. If they want to do it all, fine. Just be prepared for a short career.
verdantFOX
Well-known member
I disagree. VJ is not doomed to failure, in fact it's a proven success that is expanding. Take all the emotion out of it and plug in the economics. One person doing two peoples' job is just too enticing for cost-cutting companies -- which is everyone if you haven't noticed.
I've been saying this for three years now. The majority of people on this board (although the numbers of VJ realists are growing) have been predicting disaster for stations that adopt the model. Even though nothing has greatly changed at any of the stations that have adopted VJ (except that their costs went down and their productivity went up), they continue to predict. And they continue to be wrong.
Three years ago I began posting about the inevitability of VJ for the future of TV. Three years ago the Chicago Dogs of the world would have been all over this topic scolding me about my irrational position and my stupidity. Now, not a word. Why? Because everything he predicted would happen hasn't happened, and everything I've predicted has.
Nothing else has changed except that times have only got worse and the need for expense savings greater. Does anyone but the most ardent true-believers expect that stations who have begun to convert will suddenly change course and go back to two-person crews? Does any rational person on this board expect VJ to suddenly go away?
I've been saying this for three years now. The majority of people on this board (although the numbers of VJ realists are growing) have been predicting disaster for stations that adopt the model. Even though nothing has greatly changed at any of the stations that have adopted VJ (except that their costs went down and their productivity went up), they continue to predict. And they continue to be wrong.
Three years ago I began posting about the inevitability of VJ for the future of TV. Three years ago the Chicago Dogs of the world would have been all over this topic scolding me about my irrational position and my stupidity. Now, not a word. Why? Because everything he predicted would happen hasn't happened, and everything I've predicted has.
Nothing else has changed except that times have only got worse and the need for expense savings greater. Does anyone but the most ardent true-believers expect that stations who have begun to convert will suddenly change course and go back to two-person crews? Does any rational person on this board expect VJ to suddenly go away?
cameradog
Well-known member
rebelfotog
Active member
I would like to add to what latin lens said. While the small cameras may be cheaper, and I think that is what the suits care about, they are not necessarily better. The durability issue and easy of use it high on my list. The station I used to work at had two small cameras they were testing out. I didn't like anything about them. There was no place to mount anything, no light, no wireless, no anything, so to combat that problem we got some kind of an adapter that had an Anton Baur battery mount with a wireless mount and you could shoot off the shoulder. The fun part is the battery weighed more then the camera. The limitation of the camera also was a problem, no zoom on the built in lens and you had to fight all the auto settings. Simple things like "oh, its to dark, I will open the iris" turned into and mulit-step process. Instead of just turning the iris open, you had to use a little thumb wheel on the side of the camera that worked the oposite way of the iris on a standard lens. Finding and shutting off the AGC in the audio menus. The new tri-pods they had to get to use were also inferior. They were smaller and only raised the camera to mid-chest level at full extention. By the time I was done shooting the story I wanted to throw that camera as far as I could, and it would have been far concidering how light it was. But as a wise CP told me, it doesn't matter what camera a good photographer uses they will always get there pictures. I have since found out that the whole purpose for the smaller cameras is that they are disposable. One breaks, throw it out and get a new one. This is more cost effective? In the five years that I had my DVCPro, it was only in the shop twice out oside of regular PM, and both fixes were cheaper than buying a whole new camera. How many photogs on this board have been using a camera for over 10 years and it still works as good as the day it came out of the box. I hope I didn't get to far off topic.
cameragod
Well-known member
The thing is from my experience a lot of the very worst cameramen/reporters in this industry are the same ones that would love to work VJ. As a model it gives the lazy b’stds an excuse for poor work. They can forget all that annoying stuff like tripods, lights and focus. Just concentrate on their lunch break and whack of some stuff on deadline day while they work their phone sex-line clients the rest of the week.
Look at the worst person in the newsroom… now think of them being cloned and running the whole place. You are now seeing the future of VJ newsroom.
Buck
Well-known member
It's not that vj's are dead. It's that they haven't proven to be successful. Name a station that has flourished in the ratings after a move to vjs? Can you?
if your idea of success is saving the station a lot of money while still remaining in the crapper, then yes, vj's are not a failure. Congrats.
Baltimore's Finest Fotog
Well-known member
Alex...please enlighten this man. You've seen, firsthand, the kind of destruction VJ conversion can leave in its wake.
couryhouse
PRO user
how was the quality of her stuff? Sounds like a super employee!
Chicago Dog
Well-known member
I'm still waiting to hear how Mr. Messiah plans to compete with a station paying OMB/VJs almost three times the salary he pays his own OMB/VJs. Sounds like Mikey's station is in more trouble than ever!
cameragod
Well-known member
Umm. To be fair to Michael, (what am I thinking?) what they are doing in DC is not his VJ model. Reading his blog I think even he is slightly appalled at how little they seem to value journalism and how brutally they are using VJ as a blunt instrument to slash budgets.
I’m not defending him and I believe that what we see in DC is the real management agenda of any VJ adopters, something I’ve said all along. It’s timely wakeup call to all sides of the VJ debate.
I’m not defending him and I believe that what we see in DC is the real management agenda of any VJ adopters, something I’ve said all along. It’s timely wakeup call to all sides of the VJ debate.
cameradog
Well-known member
And yet, he's the one who posted it on Medialine, as if trying to take credit for it.
Michaelrosenblum
Well-known member
If I were trying to take 'credit' for it, I would have.
I am not.
I am simply pointing out, as I posted here a long time ago, this is going to happen.
It is going to happen a lot, and a lot more now that there is economic pressure to cut costs.
As Stephen points out quite correctly, this is not the model that I had first envisioned.
That having been said, it is clear to me that this trend is now only going to accelerate.
The confluence of cheap and adequate technology and the increasingly bleak economics of
broadcast news make this, to my mind, inevitable.
I think you all have two options here:
You can resist to your dying breath, and in doing so, I have no doubt that the best of you will survive as conventional cameramen, at least for the next few years if not more. (And here I am only talking about news).
Or you can embrace this and in doing so set a professional standard for what it could be. The best of what can be done working in this way.
The choice is clearly yours, and you will do what you will do, but I think there is an opportunity here to take control of a rapidly emerging transformation and make it your own.
In embracing it I think you have a real moment in which you could protect the quality of both the product and of journalism for the next generation.
In rejecting it, I believe you will find that it is going to happen anyway. Just not as well.
I am not.
I am simply pointing out, as I posted here a long time ago, this is going to happen.
It is going to happen a lot, and a lot more now that there is economic pressure to cut costs.
As Stephen points out quite correctly, this is not the model that I had first envisioned.
That having been said, it is clear to me that this trend is now only going to accelerate.
The confluence of cheap and adequate technology and the increasingly bleak economics of
broadcast news make this, to my mind, inevitable.
I think you all have two options here:
You can resist to your dying breath, and in doing so, I have no doubt that the best of you will survive as conventional cameramen, at least for the next few years if not more. (And here I am only talking about news).
Or you can embrace this and in doing so set a professional standard for what it could be. The best of what can be done working in this way.
The choice is clearly yours, and you will do what you will do, but I think there is an opportunity here to take control of a rapidly emerging transformation and make it your own.
In embracing it I think you have a real moment in which you could protect the quality of both the product and of journalism for the next generation.
In rejecting it, I believe you will find that it is going to happen anyway. Just not as well.