why newspaper video sucks

svp

Well-known member
It really shows the lack of intelligence at the management level in television/journalism when papers and stations continue to hire a person like Michael, with a long track record of failure (Verizon, WKRN, etc), to "train" their "journalist".
 

Michaelrosenblum

Well-known member
Dear Michael
Actually, I have been doing this for 25 years now with little in the way of serious competition. I have more clients than I can handle - more than anyone could handle. It's a global restructuring. As newspapers and magazines migrate to the web and iPads and phones (all of which require video), and as local TV stations restructure to reflect the new technologies and demands of online video, and as every company starts to make their own video for the web there is more than enough business to go around. Feel free to put out your own shingle. I would be more than happy to welcome you or anyone else to the business. Seriously.
 

svp

Well-known member
25 years of failure and still they call on you. That proves my point about management. Every new client, you're on here gloating. When they fail, whether it's Verizon, WKRN, or any other client, you tuck tail and run. You avoid REAL questions about those clients losing money on your failed plan and refuse to post examples of high quality work done by VJ's you've trained. We all know why. Because it's all crap and isn't 1/100th of the quality of work the PROFESSIONALS on this board produce everyday.

The only reason you have no competition is because you're a con man pushing a concept we all know can't work. You're simply in it for the money and, lucky for you, media management is full of fools being sold fools' gold. Despite the track record of failures that are well documented, they think their business will finally be the one that it works for. In the end, they'll fail, people will Lise their jobs, and you Michael will move on to ruin the next newsroom run by a new crop of fools.
 

Ben Longden

Well-known member
When was the last time you watched a local news broadcast? Half our video is submitted iPhone footage and crappy stringer shots.
About an hour ago.... and the only phone vision used was from some bloke who was on the scene of a bad freeway car crash, and got a couple of grabs of the Ambulance before it departed... and we arrived.

And that was in a one hour bulletin...

Its the local papers, pretending to be video news that irks me, but the quality is so bad, they make the worst of our stuff look brilliant.
 

Michaelrosenblum

Well-known member
Dear Michael

I am not going to be drawn into another endless round of pointless discussion about my 'failures', whatever you think they are.

The VJs, believe me, are only the very tip of the iceberg. (and now you find them in pretty much every newsroom in America).

There are 6 billion mobile devices in the world today, and the vast majority of them have video cameras. Some have editing capacity. All can upload to the web immediately.

Last week, Viddy, a company that did not even exist a year ago, and whose only product is a not very good editing app for phones went out at a valuation of $340 million.

Last year Apple sold 643,000 devices a day. A day!

Average people now upload 40 hours of video to YouTube every minute.

A revolution is happening here, before your very eyes. A veritable tsunami of video, where once there were only 'professionals' making it. And it is a tsunami rushing toward you at 150mph. And you want to blame 'management'. If anything, management is slow off the mark to see what is happening and respond to it - and so are you.

You can complain all you like about the 'terrible quality' of video made by 'average people' with 'phones', but both they and the gear will get better eventually. And with 6 billion people, a few will get quite good.

Your way of working, your world, is headed for extinction - at least in the way that you understood it.

You can sit and cry about how unfair all of this is; you can try and hold back the inevitable - or you can take some kind of action.

You have, for the moment, a skill set that about a billion people or so want: The ability to tell stories and communicate ideas in video. That edge won't last. They'll figure it out. So you have two choices: You can either surf the wave that is coming, or you can get buried by it. That choice is yours. But trust me, it is coming.
 
Last edited:

Nino

Well-known member
These arguments with Rosenblum have become more of a fun tradition than serving any useful purposes, the real fact is that many of us on the higher end of production should be grateful to all the Rosenblum of this business, and BTW, he isn’t the only one, his kind proliferate and like vultures smelling rotten bodies they smell ignorance and go after.

It’s a very simple formula, all we really care is if the individual creating videos earns enough from his work to make a decent living. All this big numbers game is meaningless unless it can be translated into food on the table, and you haven’t done that. Everything else is insignificant.

Yet, by handing you $2000 one can become video literate only, but by buying you $22 book one can make a million with his iPhone.

Doesn’t that sound a bit like snake oil?

You target the ignorants and you got kicked out by everyone in broadcasting. Your reputation got you out of the US market and now you moved your wagon to England. Good luck to the Brits.

In a garden full of beautiful flowers is hard to pick which one is the best one, but in a garden full of weeds beautiful flowers really standout.

Rosenblum planted weeds.

In spite of his past prediction that his new wave will put us veteran out of business, in the real world good paying clients now that they have something to compare us with truly appreciate what we’ve been doing for them, and by appreciation I mean $$$$.

Here’s an example of how much we are now appreciated. My son is getting married this week (it’s about time too, they’ve been together for ten years), and of course we have many relatives and friends coming from around the country, naturally I’m taking some time off. I turned down and gave many jobs to other crews, but one of my big clients actually postponed a shoot for the following week so I can be there. Now, here we have a big client and a multi million dollars personality both rearranging their schedule because of little ole me. This isn’t the first time that this happen and I consider this the ultimate compliment and appreciation for the effort we put into giving our client the very best we possibly can.

BTW, producers use their iPhone videos a lot, they videotape my set ups so they can show other shooters how they want it done.

My business as well as the business of many of my colleagues has been growing steadily year after year. Many of us are at the point that we can choose which job we want to take and hire somebody else to do lesser jobs.

We can keep having these endless exchanges but like they say, the truth is in the pudding. The only place you see the work generated by the Rosenblums generation of shooters is in placed where there’s no or low pay, and will stay there like they stood for the last eight years.

The point is Michael, the people you train have no clients, all they can do is put videos on Youtube hoping that somebody write some praises to feed their ego and forget about the money they wasted on you.

I said it eight years ago that one day these people will be crawling on the ground like ants waiting for us to drop crumbs, and sure enough......

Now let’s move on to something more intelligent and important, how about those Rays, 14-8 record, they beat every one of their key opponents.
 

C St. SW

Well-known member
We can keep having these endless exchanges but like they say, the truth is in the pudding. The only place you see the work generated by the Rosenblums generation of shooters is in placed where there’s no or low pay, and will stay there like they stood for the last eight years.
Exactly Nino.

Michael, you certainly are within your rights as a businessman to get out there and sell yourself and your experience in helping people use new technology to produce video products for their niche audiences. Good for you.

Most of us around here know what you are all about. You've been around here for a long time and much of what you say about the future of "video" and "news" is absoutely correct, and that's been debated here over the years ad nauseum. But you are also well aware of how many feel how you confuse the idea of "good enough" being touted as "professional" and then tell us that we are missing the point. It's that insulting arrogance that really sets you apart from the rest of us, and you just keep rubbing our noses in it. You have your market....go sell them!! No one here is buying!

Sure, you've got over two decades of experience in producing, and that's great. But to run around the world and sell your "experience" to amateurs as "professional" is disingenious and you know it. You might as well come in here and stick your finger in our eye. So for the 35+ years I've been around in this business, I can certainly tell you, as many others here have, that you're welcome to your opinion, your business acumen and your success, but I for one would never hire you and would tell others not to as well, for you sell mediocrity and pass it off as "professional." In my book, that make you full of crap.
 

Tom Servo

Well-known member
You know if you just said we can teach you to shoot better video I wouldn't have a problem its the BS about broadcast quality that gets to me
It's an old advertising tradition called "weasel words." "Broadcast quality" means NTSC or one of the HD formats. It does not mean "good shooting, well-edited, decent storytelling" or any of the other things we, and everyone else but marketers and hucksters selling a product, associate with good broadcast television.

And he's got a pretty good argument that he's telling the truth anyway, even if you insist that storytelling and shoot/edit standards be part of the definition. Have you SEEN TV news lately? Skype live shots, cell phone video, "i-Reporters. . " Now that broadcast has, on purpose, plunged down to almost the level of the home video of a kid's 3rd birthday, it's not hard to teach someone to shoot "broadcast quality."
 

Nino

Well-known member
HEY, I’VE BEEN BOOTED BY THE BRITS.

That's a first one for me, I’m a trouble maker even across the Atlantic. To think that one of my secret dreams was to be knighted by the Queen, that's out of question now.

Crap, I already had business cards printed as "Sir Nino Giannotti" video services.

Oh well, another dream in the crapper.

Considering that Rosenblum graced us with his presence here yesterday I decided to exchange the courtesy and do the same on his Guardian Blog.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-academy-blog/2012/apr/27/video-courses-guardian-media-academy

So I asked basically the same questions I asked on this thread.

In view that their main punch line on the Rosenblum/Guardian classes is that Rosenblum trained over 40,000 students I would say that my question was appropriate.

I also imagine that any good and intelligent consumer who is considering spending over $2000 for four days of video training would ask the same question. Considering also that Rosenblum has a mile long list of credentials but shows absolutely nothing to back those claims, for any intelligent consumer that's would be a big red flag, even the BBB always warn consumer to always check references and credentials. So I don't think that my questions were out of line, when I’m asked to conduct workshops I show real work with real clients, real results and real money.

So my question basically was:

“If you claim to have successfully trained over 40,000 students, can we see some of their work and successes?”

Well, The Guardian is in bed with Rosenblum on these 4 days training and they both stand to make a lot of money. Questions like mine might lead to those who intend to attend those training classes to ask the very same question and considering that they have no answers any intelligent question might cause them to lose a lots of money, intelligence and the new wave of videomakers don't go well together. Is much easier to just delete my questions as “inappropriate”, than to answers questions when there are no answers.

Also in big red letter they are telling me that if I intend to post in the future:
“Your comments are being pre moderated.”

The Guardian must be a very impartial newspaper, as long as it doesn't cut into their profits, in that case everything goes. Their version and rules of freedom of speech is set and monitored by their accountants.

This sure brought back a lots of memories. In the 60s when I was a photojournalist student I traveled for assignments in the former Yugoslavia, (I lived just across the border in Italy). That was under the Tito’s socialist regime. When there I was always assigned a government security agent to make sure that every time I click the shutter is an approved picture.
 

Michaelrosenblum

Well-known member
Dear Nino
As this is my last posting on b-roll (I am leaving this space to you and your pals now. Enjoy). The Guardian removed your comments because they were insulting, pointless lies, devoid of facts. They saw you for the obnoxious swaggering bullying loudmouth oaf that you are. And when successful graduates of my programs began to post in response, did you post an apology (which any man would have done?) Nope. That says it all. I'm outa here.
 

Nino

Well-known member
Dear Nino
As this is my last posting on b-roll (I am leaving this space to you and your pals now. Enjoy). The Guardian removed your comments because they were insulting, pointless lies, devoid of facts. They saw you for the obnoxious swaggering bullying loudmouth oaf that you are. And when successful graduates of my programs began to post in response, did you post an apology (which any man would have done?) Nope. That says it all. I'm outa here.

I tell you what Michael, why don't back up what just came out of your mouth with facts for once. Post copies of what you have deleted and let the rest decide if what you're saying is the truth or bunch of BS to cover your a$$. I don't think you have the balls to do that, it would backfire right in your face. You and the Guardian panicked that if people would start asking questions it would cut right into your profits.

You brought in two ringers to tell everybody how good your classes have been to them. Of course you brought them in after making sure that I'm no longer allowed ask questions on you blog.

Anyway, to prove to you that I'm a real man I posted again and this time asking for permission to asks questions to:
And when successful graduates of my programs began to post in response, did you post an apology (which any man would have done?) Nope.
I also give you my word as a real man that if the answers prove me wrong you'll get a very sincere and humble apology.

Now let's wait and see.
 

Dirge

Well-known member
As this is my last posting on b-roll (I am leaving this space to you and your pals now. Enjoy). <SNIP> I'm outa here.

If I only had a nickel...


I left B-Roll.net two years ago because of this inane chatter. I long for the golden era of the site (1996-2000) but those days are gone. I still think Kev should of banned MR instead of the Mighty Dyckerson—at least there would be some entertainment value here.


Anyway, I checked in to see who was still active here and to grab some contact info. If you got a friend request from me, it's because you are one of the few people I would consider hiring as second camera for a shoot. I'd have to send you a .pdf of the Red One manual and give you a crash course but I trust you guys over anyone else.


Someone message me on FB if this place turns around. Thanks.
 

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
I've been reading some threads over on the yahoo newspaper video group pages...and one thing they studiously avoid is directly insulting people. Even us TV types. :)

It would be nice (although admittedly not nearly as entertaining) to see a discussion that did not melt down into insults. We may not always agree or even like each other...but being civil seems a more moral course in the long run.
 

cameragod

Well-known member
But 10 comments deleted including my first two that point out the inacurasies in the article.
that seems a bit bias. How can we debate in none of our points are printed?
 

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
But 10 comments deleted including my first two that point out the inacurasies in the article.
that seems a bit bias. How can we debate in none of our points are printed?
I may have missed some of the debate then...and assuming they were not ass-tearing reams, why were they deleted?
 

Nino

Well-known member
I wasn’t going to get back into the pissing match with Rosenblum, although when we go head to head he always looks like a fool and over and over like he has been doing for the last 8 years he throws a tantrum saying that he will never be back here, until next time that is. He said it again yesterday morning and by evening he was logged in again.

The Rosenblum/Guardian advertisement makes us look like a bunch of thieves who grossly overcharge for our services and I’m not going to keep my mouth shut because they don’t like it.

As a consumer and homeowner if a roof contractor tells me that he can put a roof on my house for $2,000.00 instead of spending $50,000 I would definitely question it, especially if he said that they have installed over 40,000 roofs. I would want to see other roofs that he made for that little money. When the contractor says “trust me” but have nothing to show every intelligent person would know that something is wrong and would tell that roof contractor to get lost.

The same goes for Rosenblum and The Guardian claiming that for 2K they can train people to do work that it would cost $50K, there’s no difference. Show us proofs of what you're advertising and we’ll peacefully go away. But they haven’t done that, they have instead deleted those embarrassing questions.

The conversation on The Guardian was very civilized but like always Rosenblum was scrambling for answers and any fool could plainly see that it was becoming embarrassing for him and the Guardian, and this was not good for business. Any one reading that blog and his answers would think twice before handing over their money.

The Guardian is bleeding to death and they need the money, so forget about journalistic integrity.

This is what’s posted on Wikipedia:

“In June 2011 Guardian News and Media revealed increased annual losses of £33m and announced that it was looking to focus on its online edition for news coverage, leaving a physical newspaper that was to contain more comment and features. It was also speculated that the Guardian may become the first British national daily paper to go solely online."

Not only they need the cash, when they convert to online only they’ll need an army of unpaid Citizen Journalists to feed them news for free, just like CNN does with their iReport. So every idiot could see of how damaging those posts would had been for their future plans.

With their action today they proved that what was once one of the world's most prestigious newspaper is now nothing more that a money hungry tabloid.
 
Top