42 Comments Add your own

• 1. Jordan  |  April 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pm

  Interesting points, but no stations do well ratings wise with the VJ model. WRKN is an after-thought in the market, KRON is embarrassing and no one cares about KGTV in San Diego anymore.

• 2. Z  |  April 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pm

  I’m not as against it as I used to be (since I’m a photog-turned-Web guy, I can’t really get upset about learning and doing new things). I think part of the issue with lower ratings isn’t necessarily “Boy, that video’s shaky” or “Boy, that’s looking amateur”. It’s that you’re not giving the viewers what they want, same as it ever was. VJs won’t solve that. Listening to your audience has a better chance.

• 3. unsurelok  |  April 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

  You know you can’t really “see” grass grow, but damn if it doesn’t need cutting every two weeks.

  VJ is here to stay and will continue to grow, the question is do you want to be a part or not. Simple question.

  The for the first time in history the public can publish themselves. You can help and lead or you can watch.

  But that grass is gonna need cutting in 2 weeks regardless.

• 4. invitedmedia  |  April 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

  maybe three weeks if the lighting is bad.

• 5. Allen  |  April 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

  I imagine the examples shown were the cream of the crop. There are some talented vjs out there. On the other hand, there is a TON of garbage getting on the air. We’ve all seen it, yet those in favor of the systemt tend to look the other way.

  ”””””” Said Rosenblum: “They drag around the giant cameras, the mic flags, the tripods and the wires. The results are terrible We wipe all that stuff out. We change the grammar – the way the thing looks. It’s the difference between the giant early still cameras and the small Leicas that came along. VJs don’t imiate Notwhat the giant cameras do — you’d be nuts to do that. It changes the approach to gathering. ”””””””’

  The more Rosenblum speaks the more laughable he becomes. Why is he so afraid of those scary “giant cameras” and horrible tripods? He is so out of touch with what is going on. Not all of us using the “giant cameras” are stuck on sticks yet we know when to use them. Not all of us have mic flags in our shots. Believe it or not, we use wireless lavs quite often. Those of us who use “giant cameras” know how they operate and how to make great stories.Leica’s and giant still cameras? Rosenblum is the master of comparing apples to oranges.

  One of the biggest problems with the vj system is the people behind the camera. Former reporters who can’t shoot and former photogs who can’t write or talk. And trust me, the home viewer doesn’t want to see my face in front of the camera.

  I have a hard time believing the consumers buying the big expensive HDTV’s are wanting to see video that looks like it was shot by chimps using home camcorders.

• 6. unsurelok  |  April 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

  Its not about the size of your lawnmower.

• 7. Michael Rosenblum  |  April 17th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

  I have been in this for the long haul. Ten years ago, no one even thought about it. Five years ago, nervous derision. Now, more and more acceptance, and as it happens the dinosaurs get more and more frightened. Good.

• 8. Gramsci  |  April 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

  Steve-
  First, I support what Michael is saying. I believed it before RTNDA, and now believe it even more strongly. With that said, I sat through that session and I think your characterization is inflammatory. There were clearly individuals in the audience that were struggling. One couldn’t seem to get past “production value” as an issue, but he was asking nicely for a defense or counter argument. He was looking for help getting past his own concerns. Instead, he was greeted by a highly emotional response (not by a panelist but a close ally) that inflamed the situation. It was after that moment that the blood began to boil. I would encourage you and the other agents of change to stay calm and sensible in a forum such as RTNDA in order to earn more converts.

• 9. Steve Safran  |  April 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pm

  Gramsci: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. The gentleman to whom you refer is Joe Vazquez, with whom I spoke after the session to get clarification on his comments. I believe I characterized his statements and intentions appropriately.

  Blood began to boil, indeed. My colleague seated on another side of the aisle reported to me the many “harumphs” and the like that came from throughout the ranks before and after Mr. Vazquez raised the quality issue.

  We’re not out to convert anyone. We’re trying to help those who want to help themselves. I believe we are eminently sensible at LR. As for calm - Cory’s better at that.

  Thanks again for your take on the day.

• 10. invitedmedia  |  April 18th, 2007 at 5:34 am

  sounds to me like the person who could have done the best piece on the subject of vj’s (no matter which side he took) would have been Mr. Vazquez himself.

  he had what makes this whole online thingy so damn interesting… a passion for the subject matter.

  forget the lighting, the camera or the tripod, if i don’t believe the person telling the story i will find one i can elsewhere.

  personally, i would have handed the guy a camera (on the spot) and asked him nicely to have at it.

  i think you’d have had yourself one heckuva final cut.

• 11. Rocker  |  April 18th, 2007 at 7:18 am

  This reads like the abortion debate…plays in the media like “either you’re for abortion on demand under any circumstances” or “you’re against it categorically”. The end game is somewhere in the middle.

  VJ material should not be INSTEAD OF traditional professionally-produced packages…it supplements it, expands the coverage, etc. Stations who are looking to completely/almost completely turn over to VJs will not be the ratings leaders, but those that refuse to embrace these capabilities to get more boots on the ground are missing a great opportunity, especially when it comes to generating more content for websites, DTV multicast news channels, etc. They’re also leaving the door open for newspapers to outflank them on the video front. I envision in large markets that the bulk of VJ generated material may not make the air, but will have significant value nonetheless.

• 12. Rob  |  April 18th, 2007 at 8:10 am

  I’m not sure whether or not VJs are the total future of the news industry. Sure it’ll save some coin, and more than likely if the industry as a whole went to this model more than a few people would be out of business.

  But the industry model is changing. It has to. Declining viewership on-air and the increasing dominance of the Internet has to be forcing companies to rethink the model and find new ways to get the message out using existing resources. If it’s not VJs, something else will take the hit.

  As for Allen’s comment about “chimps using home camcorders” … keep in mind the most compelling video shown around the nation this week was from a college student holding a cellphone camera. It wasn’t pretty but it was compelling, and people watched.

  Imagine if that was, instead a person who knew how to shoot holding a camera that would have allowed them to better capture the scene. And what if that person had a laptop editing suite and wireless internet access to enable them to shoot and edit right from the scene and possibly wave the video to their station long before a live truck arrived? Wouldn’t that be an even more compelling argument for at least exploring the VJ model?

• 13. Allen  |  April 18th, 2007 at 8:11 am

  The dinosaurs aren’t scared, Mike. In fact, our station just bought 3 more Sony XD cameras. Now our staff of 25 dinousaurs all have this great camera.

  Editing on a laptop is nothing new. On a trip to China several years ago I shot with my “giant” Sony XD and edited the stories using Final Cut Pro on our Apple laptop. The stories were then sent back to the station from there using the available internet service at our hotel.

  You did not invent the wheel, Mike. Don’t let technology pass you by.

• 14. Al  |  April 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am

  “As for Allen’s comment about “chimps using home camcorders” … keep in mind the most compelling video shown around the nation this week was from a college student holding a cellphone camera. It wasn’t pretty but it was compelling, and people watched.”

  Yes, but.

  It was because the video was available. This wasn’t some VJ, it was a kid with a camera. It’s not new for someone to get something on tape or film and say “Hey, maybe the news would like this.” At least three Pulitzer Prize-winning photographers that I can think of were not journalists, but people who had a camera at the right time and place.

• 15. Allen  |  April 18th, 2007 at 9:34 am

  I agree with Al. Would you want to watch an entire newscast shot on camera phones on your HD set? That is not a good example.

• 16. Bob  |  April 18th, 2007 at 10:02 am

  Allen, I wouldn’t watch an entire newscast. And as to the availability of video being the reason people watched… Is that not the stated purpose of Vj’s? getting more stories that aren’t usually covered?

• 17. Al  |  April 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am

  My point is your example of the VT vid doesn’t match a VJ concept. That was additional video of an already-covered event. If the same guy shot a story with that camera phone that no one else covered, it would be exceedingly hard to watch. At the same time, the odds of a VJ being at the same place at the same time is almost as small as that of a regular news crew being there.

• 18. Anne  |  April 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am

  “More” and “better” are not synonyms. I would love to see a local news station go deeper into an actual news story. I would love to see a ban on housefire coverage, personally.

  Hire better reporters (ones who can actually write) and the stories will get better. And then some of us former viewers who have been offended by local news’ collective nose-dive toward intellectual vacancy might come back.

• 19. Michael Rosenblum  |  April 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

  Allen
  It is curious to me that your station is prepared to adapt to fast cheap editing in the form of laptops (seeming with little concern on your part for what you are obviously doing to craft editors, not much concern for the ‘quallity’ that a professional CMX edit suite can deliver compared to a ‘toy’ kids laptop.
  As for your stations most recent vastly expensive purchase, many other corporations have made similar errors in judgement. Trust me, it is nothing to be proud of.

• 20. Allen  |  April 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

  Mike,

  Once again you continue to amaze. We do have the edit suites at our station, thank you. We take the laptops with us when we travel. And you know that.

  Have you seen the results of your vj system at some of your stations? I have. THAT is nothing to be proud of, trust me.

• 21. Michael Rosenblum  |  April 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  Allen
  If you were running the station, when it comes time to replace those edit suites, what do you think the station should buy? New suites or laptops? I mean, if you were GM?

• 22. Bob  |  April 18th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

  My point was if video is compelling, like the VT phone cam was, people will watch. I think we differ as to what makes a video interesting. You say it was widely viewed because “That was additional video of an already-covered event”. I think video can be compelling, and thus widely viewed, irregardless of video contents prior coverage.

• 23. Steve Safran  |  April 18th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

  Ah, Rosenblum. Always good for ratings at LR.

• 24. rosenblum  |  April 18th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

  Hey steve
  Move this to the top and lets see if we can hit 100!

• 25. Jay  |  April 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  Mike, I’m not sure most people are railing against you for using laptop editors. Digital is digital to a large extent. There’s very little that our Avid edit bays can do that my Vegas Video laptop can’t.

  But on a day-in, day-out usage, I’d trust the edit suite far more than my laptop. I know how often my laptop and others go down, compared to the Avids, and it’s a big margin. The cost of missing slot because the computer died can’t be calculated.

  Back when I shot video every day, I had a Betacam and I carried a personal Sony Digital 8. I used both for different reasons. The minicam was acceptable to managers because, despite a quality loss, the small size allowed me to go places and shoot things that a Betacam couldn’t.

  There are times and places where less-than-optimal equipment can, and often must be used. But you’re going to be hard pressed to convince most GMs, even with implied cost savings, that a regular newsroom is the place for it.

  It’s not like this equipment is new to anyone. The Canon XL series is, what, four years old, the Sony VX series dating back to the beginning of Mini DV. What you send your folks into the field with now is, fundamentally, not much more advanced than those older cameras. Same goes for laptop editing.

  So my question would be: What does the VJ bring to the table that wasn’t already considered and rejected years ago?

• 26. Michael Rosenblum  |  April 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm

  I think the VJ brings two things. Lets go back to the equipment issue. In an ideal world we would all use the very best equipment money could buy, But we live in the real world of constrained budgets. You have to make choices. There are trade offs. Is the interest of the public (and the station) better served by buying one extremly high quality blueray Sony camera or 20 Z1s? Is it better to field 20 VJs or one crack crew? Is it better to have 2 top of the line avid edit suites or 25 FCP laptops in play every day? These are the real trade offs we are talking about. I am all for maximizing the number of cameras, edits and people in play every day. If that means using slightly inferior gear, I will take the hit because the upside iworth it to me. There is an additional benefit. When you start to put a lot of people in play you actually buy them all a lot more time to work on their stories. And sometime you buy the freedom to spike a story that just does not pan out, so you can take some risks. Is it worth the trade off? We make these calls all the time. We could hire Steven Spielberg to make the best local news piece you ever saw in your life. shot in panavision. But you would blow your budget for a month, and you’d have to run the same 3 minute piece 40 times a day for 30 days. Would it be good, It would be unbelievable. Its all a scale - I go for maximizing cameras and edits. You pick where you want to be on the spectrum. Then decide what you have traded off to be there.

• 27. Chicago Dog  |  April 19th, 2007 at 9:10 am

  I find this whole situation funny, because Mike’s claiming “victory” about stations that have — and continue to be — in the toilet. He might be proud of the fact that he’s got a few stations touting the word “VJ” (see also: OMB), but he fails to realize what follows in his wake.

  Why would these stations continue to fail? It’s been over a year already. We were told, straight from Rosenblum, that ratings would flip a 180. We’d all be looking for jobs by now if we didn’t “convert.” Profits would skyrocket, and the public would notice.

  Nothing’s happened. Ratings are still garbage. I’m still working, as are every one of my counterparts. Profits are still on their little plateau. The public didn’t chomp on.

  These stations saved a few bucks, but that’s all. Anyone worthwhile went looking for greener pastures. Given the shipwrecks they came from, they didn’t have much problem.

  I mean, are you at all surprised? These stations took the advice of a guy whose news experience is laughably archaic:

  1. His last job in a day-in, day-out local newsroom was almost thirty years ago.

  2. He’s never shadowed a field crew — yet that’s who he’s set out to “revamp.”

  If OMB/VJ were the way to go, that’s what we’d be doing today. We’d be doing it a long time before this inexperienced jackass surfaced. Mike’s ideas are nothing new.

• 28. Jay  |  April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am

  Mike’s credentials aside, it still doesn’t answer the question: If this works so well, why haven’t we been doing it for the four or five years or more that the technology’s been available, instead of last year?

  The impression I would get is that stations looked at it and decided it wasn’t worth the trade offs (at larger stations, I’d also include union issues)

• 29. Safran  |  April 19th, 2007 at 10:53 am

  As a guy that worked in a newsroom as recently as December, I’ll jump in on the ratings issue.

  A station’s ratings are a giant steamship of a problem. I worked at a place that took years and years to turn its ratings fortunes around. It got screwed by the network and worked incredibly hard to improve itself. It invested a fortune. At no point in the process did anyone say “It’s been 12 months, how come we’re not number one?” And they certainly weren’t saving money.

  Also - let’s face facts. There are markets where viewership is entrenched. People get used to one channel as the dominant news channel, period.

  I find the “how come these stations aren’t number one?” arguments red herrings. What they are doing remarkably successfully is creating vast amounts of original content for the web - and selling it. They are taking risks. If it’s not a home run by the old metric, it’s a grand slam in new media.

  (Disclosure: WKRN is an AR&D Client.)

  All arguments aside, I know one basic fact to be true - especially so in this case: you can’t fight emotion with logic.

• 30. Allen  |  April 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

  It’s not that the VJ stations “aren’t number one”, from what I’ve seen the ratings have shown no improvement. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  To be honest, I don’t think it’s all the fault of the VJ “system”. A lot of the problem is the people behind the camera. There are people shooting who have no clue what they are doing and the same with former photogs now reporting. Regardless of what Rosenblum or management at these stations might think, it takes talented people to really make any newsroom be successful, VJ’s or no VJ’s.

• 31. Chicago Dog  |  April 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

  Regarding web content: red herring? I don’t think so. How do you even remotely know that’s true? The stations running the OMB/VJ system are doing nothing different compared to a lot of other “traditional” crew stations. They’re not exploring new technology just because their cameras and editing equipment are cheaper.

  As Jay rightly pointed out, we’d be doing this long before Rosenblum began darkening doorsteps.

  I know for a fact that my previous station is doing webcasts on a regular basis. They’re a #1 station. Their webcasts get more hits than some of the other stations get viewers on their shows. They’re not OMB/VJ. So, what’s the explanation?

  Let’s say the other stations in their market aren’t yet producing more online content. What happens when they do? The OMB/VJ stations will find themselves getting crushed in ANOTHER medium.

  Like it or not, you can’t deny that the stations that have gone OMB/VJ are still getting crushed. Coloring the picture with a different crayon doesn’t change the outline.

  Hell — WKRN is returning to two-person, “traditional” crews. Did Sechrist happen to bring up that nugget of information during the presentation? I bet not.

  The OMB/VJ system is nothing more than a cost-cutting technique, and we have yet to see proof otherwise.

  Mike’s inexperience shows in his nonsensical analogies and naive blog entries. I’m still trying to figure out why he accused me of being anti-semetic.

• 32. Safran  |  April 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pm

  Sechrist absolutely did mention that they employ two-person crews for some situations, yes. It’s not a matter of “going back” to the model. They found, not surprisingly, that there were situations in which that works best. That’s the great thing about being open and willing to experiment - you find out what works and what doesn’t.

  I salute any station that tries new things. The site speaks for itself in terms of its approach and generation of new content. Feel free to get in the last word if you wish. I find ad hominem attacks of little added value in this exceptionally important debate.

• 33. Chicago Dog  |  April 19th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

  Unfortunately, you’re wrong. While it’s true they kept traditional two-person crews around while most everyone else went OMB/VJ, they’re scaling even THAT aspect back.

  We challenged Rosenblum to ask Sechrist if he was scaling back the OMB/VJs in the newsroom. Very surprisingly, Rosenblum actually did it:

  “Nashville has indeed rolled back from a 100% VJ station to an 85% VJ station …”

  I’m not really sure how you can go from 100% to 85%, as WKRN wasn’t at 100% to begin with before they started scaling back. We know this fact from Sechrist’s own words, as well as the words of former station employees.

  Further, I’m not quite sure how you claim my points-of-view are “attacks.” I’m quite passionate about my professional career. Having some clown saunter in and claim the world’s a-changin’ because he got a handful of dead-last stations to convert (which are still dead-last, mind you) doesn’t really put me in a good mood.

  I happen to think my points are very valid. For instance: you wouldn’t take your car to a mechanic who’s wiling to repair everything under the hood without even popping the hood in the first place, would you?

  Rosenblum hasn’t had a job in a local newsroom in the United States in almost thirty years. Even then, he was an associate producer. He has never shadowed a field crew. Yet, he’s completely comfortable in telling us what we should be doing and how we should be doing it?

  Please.

  I’m all for making my job easier. That’s fine by me. But don’t try passing it off as the Second Coming.

• 34. invitedmedia  |  April 20th, 2007 at 5:54 am

  dude, i don’t know you from the chicago dog i witnessed getting rundown on stoney island road monday on my trip to THE university of chicago, but with the passion with which you write about your professional career YOU TOO could do a bang up job as a video journalist.

  it isn’t whether they MAKE you do it, it’s whether you WANT to do it. newspapers seem to like this idea and how it translates on the web.

  if i were you i’d keep a watch on the “other” competition instead of the other stations in town.

  i don’t think the newspapers intend on putting these vj’s videos in print. if you get my drift.

• 35. joe vazquez  |  April 20th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

  Steve,

  just so it’s clear — you did quote me correctly and in the right context.

  But, as I told you, I was also disappointed by Rosenblum’s defensive and vitriolic retort. He launched into a personal attack, when he could have done himself a huge service and answered the question.

  He implied that I’m not a real journalist . . . and that I should just “go to hollywood.”

  And then another guy yelled at me, “you cover fires and fires and fires!” Both were attacks on the quality of newsroom coverage. Those points are absolutely well taken . . . in fact, I often make them myself!

  But what about the quality of the VJ pieces? The technical quality, the journalistic quality, the quality of the storytelling all have a long way to go.

  Who knows? I may be going there with you … I just hope it’s a more civil discussion along the way.

• 36. rosenblum  |  April 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm

  Joe,
  Iagree that my response to you was both snide and uncalled for. (You can read my own apologia on my blog).
  As we move into this it is bound to generate both anxiety and uncertainty. I can appreciate your questions on quality but I hope that the pieces from KGTV helped allay some of your own anxieties… And as one of the participants noted…it is only going to get better from here. This certainly reflects my own experience.

• 37. Chicago Dog  |  April 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 am

  Hey Mike, remember when you accused me of being antisemetic a couple months ago?

  In a message with “up yours” in the subject line, you so eloquently stated:

  “get back to your trailer park you illiterate anti semite.”

  Where’s MY apology?

• 38. John Proffitt  |  April 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 am

  I find the ratings points interesting — that the stations that have “converted” haven’t seen a bump in ratings from their low numbers in a year’s time. But I have to agree with Steve that those are red herrings — people that watch local TV news regularly watch the same local channel nearly religiously. Getting them to change is nearly impossible for all kinds of reasons.

  Let’s assume a lackluster local TV station adopts this new method in the hopes of raising their ratings. By taking on the VJ production model, will it make brilliant writers, editors or camera people out of the folks already in place? I doubt it. I suspect if you really want the VJ model to work, you’re going to have to give it time and throw some smart and creative and NEW people at it — people not bound by old thought models. Ask yourself how many people in local TV news at low-end stations are actually smart enough to craft an entirely new way to do TV news, and can convince their non-existent audience to join them on this journey of discovery?

  You know what… let’s get down to the problem with TV news: it sucks. The formats are tired. The stories are all canned — only the names are changed. The visual grammar is set in stone. (It’s the Latin of the media world — a dead language we can read, but nobody writes new stuff anymore.) The stories in TV news practically write, shoot and edit themselves. TV news is basically a bad sitcom that no one seems able to kill — not the producers, not the audience, not the advertisers. The only time TV news is compelling is when we’re allowed to watch something happening right in front of us (like 9/11, which I watched in real-time for hours whether I liked it or not).

  But as bad as traditional TV news is, the VJ model can’t simply replace it. Indeed, using VJ methods to recreate bad TV news is a waste of time.

  The problem with the VJ approach is that it hasn’t yet solidified into semi-standard formats or approaches yet. We haven’t yet figured out what it’s “supposed” to look like — we’re still discovering the grammar and filling out the vocabulary for this new language. Try answering these questions:

  * Do we publish a VJ story NOW or wait for the 11:00pm news?
  * Does a VJ package need to be hosted from a studio?
  * Does it need to be broadcast to be relevant?
  * Do we need to see the VJ on-screen?
  * Does there have to be an audible narrator?
  * How long should a piece be?
  * Should pieces be setup as static recordings or be designed as multi-leveled interactive experiences?

  We don’t know yet.

  In the mean time, as all this is getting figured out, take a look at the work being done by the Washington Post (not a local TV station!). It’s fascinating to see what they’re doing. Is it TV news? Nope. Is it VJ news? Perhaps. All I know is that it’s news, it’s video, and it’s new — and a lot of it is compelling to watch. And oh yeah — it’s better than any local news I’ve seen in the last few years.

  I think local TV news folks had better watch out — not for other news teams going VJ, but for newspapers and radio stations and community groups and even the audience taking up the camera and making content and sharing it. They don’t have ratings to protect or gigantic TV egos to massage. And in many cases, they’ll be more mission-driven than TV stations are — they will capture stories that news editors will deem dull (no fires, no murders), but will mean a great deal to small groups of users that are passionate about a specific topic. These non-TV-people will have truly original content from original sources.

  One last thing. Consider this… What would happen if NPR “figured out” how to do the VJ news thing and then taught all the local public radio and public TV stations around the country how to do it, and shared all that content in a smart online and broadcast hybrid system? These are journalists that know how to tell stories and focus on content of lasting impact. This is a serious threat. Then what do you do with your local TV station with crappy ratings and crappy TV news?

• 39. left the business 5 years ago  |  April 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

  You guys are funny. Go the cheapest route you can. Put crap on the air, make money. Entry level talent will work for pennies to get into TV. Take advantage of the gullible. If you want quality production values, rent a DVD. Decent news reporting, buy a newspaper. You want crap media, turn on your TV. Its free but you get what you pay for.

• 40. Steve Safran  |  April 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

  Joe: thank you for your note. It’s not often a journalist gets to hear “you quoted me correctly and in the right context.” Your amplification is absolutely on the mark. The response to your question was indeed defensive, and I note happily that Rosenblum took notice and apologized.

  John: Outstanding. You raise a ton of great questions. That’s what’s great about venturing into new territory - we don’t even know all the questions yet. We certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers. We do know things have changed. But it’s true - the VJ model will be a total failure if it only tries to duplicate the old TV news model. That’s why I’m hoping it will evolve.

  Left the biz: The business has changed a lot since you left it five years ago. The fact is that nobody here is talking about taking the cheapest route. Stations could have done that years ago. And nobody will ever accuse local TV stations of spending tons of money they don’t have to. So if that’s what they’re all about - why didn’t they take the cheap route 10 years ago?

  Because it’s about the technology and the economy of the industry. Both have changed. All jobs do. As John put it - there is nowhere to go with the old model. It is losing audience and advertising money.

  If a plane is crashing, do you insist the pilot keep flying as though it’s fine, or beg him to try anything he can think of to save it?

  Let me ask you… how would you change this? We’ve put our ideas out there, and we’re wide open for suggestion - how should local TV evolve so it can compete with the online marketplace?

• 41. left the business 5 years ago  |  April 27th, 2007 at 9:20 am

  Market share is splintered and to retain viewer ship, stations here in Boston have resorted to the lowest common denominator. I am not sure it can be helped. Incorrect spelling, improper language, mis use of tense, slang, innuendo, its now commonplace for TV news. What used to be the video equivalent of good journalism has been replaced by flashy personalities. Quality has gone out the window. Content has been replaced by graphics. they do not even care if tapes are in sync any more.

  This is what revenue driven “journalism” has brought us. Its not competing with the web that has give us this us crap on the air, its competition with 120 other channels. Its competing with PS2 and the web. The vast range of entertainment has made it so difficult for news to compete with entertainment, news has recreated itself to look and feel like entertainment. Is it more important that TV news be flashy and attractive rather than accurate and informative. Want information, read a paper or go to the web.

  VJ’s are the extension of this natural evolution. The training required to make a good JV does not exist. Time and teachers are not available. So they are poorly trained. Only those with the drive and energy will be able to learn from their own mistakes and get better, the rest will fall by the wayside.

  I spent years working with technical and talent novices. No one wants to take the time and expense to train them properly. Quick and dirty will do. The clients who care to invest time (and money) to do it right are all gone. In time, more novices will find work as VJ’s and as it become the norm, some will get better at it and rise to the top. Mostly through their own trial and error. There is no time for mentoring. Only enough time to get it done.

  How many of your readers have mentored someone with potential over a long period of time. Not training but mentoring? Enough so they have a skill set that is top notch? My guess is very few but I am willing to be surprised.

• 42. JGoslen  |  May 10th, 2007 at 9:06 am

  If you want to see quality, all you have to watch is Travis Fox’s work, who was on the panel and showed his work. I can’t post links, but try travisfox (dot) com, and you can see everything. I challenge you to say that VJs can’t produce quality reporting after seeing that. His journalism is better than ANY local TV station in the country.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed