VJ in DC

For what it's worth

I am in no way supporting the VJ idea. I would start looking elsewhere right away if it came to my station. In the interim though, not all of us would just up and quit. The bills would still have to be paid while the job search is on (unless congress approves a bail out for television news photographers).

It does bring up a decent point that has come up on b-roll though the years, poor spelling and grammar. I won't quote any responses from this thread, but it exists.

Going forward, I think it's safe to say more, not less, will be required from television photographers. I don't claim to be an English professor, but a solid command of the language will be a good selling point (unless you work for Telemundo then brush up on your Spanish).

Those of us who have been pointing things like this out on "b-roll" have been accused of overreacting and to ease up on the "grammar police" approach.

Your News Directors may not be requiring a Master's thesis, but those of us finding ourselves in the cross hairs of a VJ situation may want to brush up on our basic writing skills.
 
Sound advice, AB. Those of us who do stick with it will need to diversify our skills in every direction. Who knew a job as thankless as TV News Photog could grow even more demanding? I knew I should have been a producer! Oh wait - they're having to learn to shoot and edit too. Strange times...
 
AB said:
It does bring up a decent point that has come up on b-roll though the years, poor spelling and grammar. I won't quote any responses from this thread, but it exists.
Click to expand...

One of the members of the board (I can't remember who offhand) writes his entries in a word processing program and then cut and pastes the entry into the response form. It's not perfect, but it's a great start.

I do find it very funny that the consultant pushing wildly for the OMB/VJ system is such a bad writer.

Speaking of: what's your game plan for competition, Mikey? Another station in your market is offering to pay OMB/VJs three times the amount you offer your OMB/VJs.

How do you plan to attract applicants when you've got nothing but hash marks in your ratings slots? The other station, though it's in last place, actually has viewers.

Looks like the King of Cheap is about to get a taste of his own medicine.
 
I fear spelling checkers have ruined my natural ability to spell.

Clumbsy hands on the keyboard does not help me much either!
 
Look, lowering the bar for what is "good journalism" is not the answer here. I've seen what the VJ's at WUSA crank out, and honestly I'm not concerned one bit. Here in DC the locals have been competing against VJs and OMBs for 10+ years, and to what end? They have had no significant impact on news coverage or the overall success of any newsroom in which they operate.

The idea that the failure of newspapers is somehow the "canary in the coal mine" for local news is the result of skewed thinking. It is the ad hoc ergo propter hoc school of thought, and it is by definition self-fulfilling.

Newspapers have been dying a slooowww death for decades, not just since the internet. There are many reasons why but one is there are better ways for advertisers to get their message out to the public. Same with broadcast, same with cable, same with radio. The people in charge wouldn't care a wit about ratings if the ratings weren't intrinsically tied to ad sales. Period. It really has nothing to do with 3 crew teams or VJ's. As long as the ratings are there that is ALL the folks in charge care about.

But, and here is the real question, where do people turn when all hell is breaking loose in their town or region? The answer is local TV, local radio, internet and word of mouth. Now, if Viewer A turns on WUSA during a major news incident and sees a phoner with nothing more than mobile phone video looped, chances are the channel gets changed. Chances are better than not that Viewer A will stop and watch the station that has the best looking pictures (read:compelling video) and best information about the incident.

That is not going to come from OMB or VJ's. If it were, we would see it here daily. But in fact we don't. Because in DC when the sh!t hits the fan, the desk and managers send those who they know will get the job done. At the end of the day, you may not have bumped the ratings at all, but you did establish a better relationship of trust with the audience. Several years of that leads to ratings and the $$$ follow.

Oh and BTW, there is and has always been a direct link between the ratings of a station and the amount of money the parent company consistently puts into that station. WUSA was on top when it was investing in the product, WRC was on top when it was investing in the product. But now these two are shining examples of what happens when the parent companies become penny-wise and pound-foolish.

FOXPhotog
 
He blesses the boys
As they stand in line
The smell of camera grease
And the lenses they shine
He's there to help them
All that he can
To make them feel wanted
He's a good holy man
 
Hard to think of regular broadcast stations not having news.

One trend that really alarms me, and annoys me, is infomercials that are creeping up closer and closer to 'normal' viewing times on main channels. I used to enjoy staying up and watching stuff on them. Yea, I know there is Cable but still... I guess I do not like change sometimes either.

Many people in the 18 to 30 year old group tell me they get thier news online...So I understand some of the demise of the newspapers. Myself? Hey I am an old timer I still enjoy that cup of coffee and the morning paper.

Jim Lehrer thiks there will always be the place for the news gatherers and he went on about other segments of the news field in his speech at the Cronkite Awards Held here in Phx AZ. Here is a link to speech. Interesting indeed. http://www.smecc.org/media/cronkite_fin-256.wmv

Change in media in the early days is evident in the history of newspaper related unions. I invive you to examine this section of the International Typographical Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Typographical_Union

At the start... there was just type.. then engravings then photos...

Do not confuse this with the other ITU ( international telecommunications Union)

I had an interesting conversation with an old timer who learned the business in the old days with an ITU aprenticeship. During the time he was involved they taught him not just running the press but all phases of running a newspsper he said. I am going to try to get him on camera.
 
Last edited:
AB said:
It does bring up a decent point that has come up on b-roll though the years, poor spelling and grammar.
Click to expand...

That would be THROUGH the years. Some of us need to learn how to proof read a little better too I guess. :)

I could have edited the previous post, but if I'm going to call people out for their errors, what better place to start than a quick check in the mirror.
 
The change in things is evident when you consider how people get some of their news and entertainment... It is now easy for them to indulge on the boss' time at work though the Internet. Whereas, if an employee was to whip out a TV set of sit and read the newspaper at work, it would result in their termination, the Internet offers a " on the desk- hidden amongst the other screens source if entertainment and news."

It used to be you would go home prop up and watch the nightly news... but... if you were watching it all day long anyway...
 
Last edited:
Deffinition of Success

How you define success depends on who you are. In today's world (layoffs, lower revenue, disappearing ratings) management would describe VJ as successful if it cut costs and did not affect ratings.

Only management will determine whether they adopt VJ, not the people who work at their stations. That being the case, the expansion of VJ is inevitable (as I have said, and has turned out to be accurate) because having one person do two peoples job and in doing so having no negative affect on ratings, lowers your costs.

Few on this board see VJ as a success, because those people will give you a hundred reasons why VJ is a failure based on their definition of success. But clearly major groups are seeing the evidence differently than the people on this board. If VJ were a failure in managements' eyes, it would not be expanding.

Since it is expanding, they see VJ as a success and not not only an option, but a growing necessity in order to compete. In simple terms, that's why VJ is expanding and will continue to do so.
 
verdantFOX said:
But clearly major groups are seeing the evidence differently than the people on this board.
Click to expand...

gci


I dunno. Do these executives see something other than a drastic downhill slide?
 
the graph...

But there are a lot of other conditions affecting this? what does this graph show, worth, gross income or net income?

EVERYTHING is taking a dive... I am not sure that who is shooting news is the reason.


cameradog said:
gci


I dunno. Do these executives see something other than a drastic downhill slide?
Click to expand...
 
What the charts show us is that only desperate companies are choosing the VJ method...

gci


... and that once they do go VJ, it doesn't seem to help them at all...

ybtva


... uh, no, not at all...

mhp


I don't see how anybody can look at the last two charts and even remotely begin to argue that using VJs has been a "success."
 
charts

Cameradog - the charts are nice but worthless.
Post these for comparison:
Granite
Lin
Sinclair
Nexstar
all are off. Everyone is off. VJ or not.
Berkshire Hathaway is down to $62,000 a share from $120,000, but I don't think Warren Buffett went VJ.. yet.
 
Michaelrosenblum said:
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.
Click to expand...
I could also embrace learning to drive my car in reverse at 65MPH and get quite good at it. That doesn't however make it the right thing to do or a good idea.
 
All of you are arguing this point as if ratings are the only measure of success. That's fine if that is YOUR measure. Do any of you think that Young, Lin, NBC, or Gannet are only concerned about ratings? They are concerned about EXPENSES. When one person can do the job of two, you cut your expenses in half. THAT is what they care about right now -- expenses. Look outside the industry. Look at financial companies, tech companies, any company, they are all cutting expenses and looking for efficiencies. If you want to deny the inevitable, please do so. You'll simply be swept away with the others who stand in the way of change. That's the case in any industry. You people have been fighting the battle for three years now. Who's been right? Chicago Dog, New York Street, Camera Dog, or me? Has VJ expanded (as I predicted) or been abandoned (as they predicted)? Answer that question and you have the path to the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top