74 Comments Add your own

• 1. NewMediaGuy  |  October 3rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm

  Think you are missing the point.

  Yes, “one-man [in several cases here one-woman] bands” to a new level but really creating a network of new-media broadcast journalists which is a giant step.

  Aren’t hey going to cover for broadcast and abcnews.com AND create a new coverage model that has to be recognized?

  Isn’t it a new era redefinition of what a “coverage team” is?

• 2. Z  |  October 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm

  And best of all, they probably won’t be union and won’t get paid for more than one of those jobs.

• 3. Rosenblum  |  October 3rd, 2007 at 6:55 pm

  not a moment too soon….

• 4. Dave W  |  October 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm

  We’re talking NETWORK news here.
  From these bureaus, maybe a story a week.
  Or a month. Probably seen on the digital channel.
  Not local news, 3x a day shaky cam stuff.

• 5. Frank Catalano  |  October 4th, 2007 at 2:51 am

  A “new media” approach? Hardly.

  TV has finally come full circle and become radio. That is, in terms of the staff required to handle the equipment to put together a story. That’s a good thing.

• 6. Brink  |  October 4th, 2007 at 3:56 am

  Important note to Rosenblum: You didn’ t invent this concept.

  Stop trying to associate your name with every instance of it. You’re nothing more than a huckster who is promoting a very old idea as a new one and charging management for the “service.”

• 7. Safran  |  October 4th, 2007 at 4:36 am

  I think I can safely say that Michael knows he didn’t invent the concept of a person using a video camera to shoot and edit their own stuff. He has, however, been its most vocal advocate for several years now and has been pointing out how the new technologies overcome the last resistance of “broadcast quality” and such, as well as make it easier for video (and traditionally non-video) journalists to do a better job.

  Michael can make people angry for sure. But he’s no huckster, except to those who feel threatened by him.

• 8. Brink  |  October 4th, 2007 at 5:35 am

  No? Check out the record of places at which he’s pitched his super-amazing cost-cutting, ratings-increasing one-man-band idea (charging thousands to do so), and see the results.

  They’re abysmal.

  Someone who comes is, for a fee, and tells you how to do something that ultimately doesn’t deliver the promised results is, by definition, a huckster.

• 9. Scott  |  October 4th, 2007 at 5:40 am

  Steve, we are talking about the guy who ripped off the VOA so badly that the US Government Accountability Office took notice.

• 10. Rocker  |  October 4th, 2007 at 6:34 am

  Z, I think you were being facetious…but anyone who’s had to wait for for a couple of union guys to show up to do something you could do yourself in 10 seconds would have to agree that on balance, it sounds like a good scenario. Speaking as a “suit” from a productivity perspective, but also speaking as a news consumer who thinks the societal benefits of journalism organizations being able to cast wider nets (as ABC is going to do here) far outweigh the job retention concerns you raise (or seem to imply). re; “Won’t get paid for more than one of those jobs”…if ONE person CAN do it, then by definition it should be considered ONE job. The effect on the quality/professionalism of the resulting work is definitely something to be carefully considered..and where coverage needs should still dictate a traditional approach is definitely a legitimate topic to argue, but that’s a different debate.

• 11. Contrarian  |  October 4th, 2007 at 6:44 am

  But the effect on quality is NEVER considered. Take a look at the dreck that OMBs pump out on a daily basis. That lack of quality is always trumped by the cost-savings, which is all that matters anymore.

• 12. Anonymous  |  October 4th, 2007 at 6:51 am

  Maybe ABC News will acheive the quality of Current TV?

  No, seriously, check out what’s on Current these days. There are some seriously good short documentaries on oppressive regimes, cities ruled by ethnic militias, all done through interviews with the residents by multilingual OMBs. Gripping stuff.

• 13. Rosenblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 6:54 am

  I have been promoting this for almost twenty years now. I don’t take credit for ABC, but I applaud it. It’s going to open the door to lots more. It’s going to change a lot of jobs and the way a lot of people work. It is going to make television news much more cost effective. It needs it. The reactions like those above are driven primarily by fear. Well, it is fear well placed. Good. As I have said for almost two decades, this is going to happen. And it is.

• 14. tdc  |  October 4th, 2007 at 6:55 am

  i think if you guys at lr could only come up with a story that involved drudge hotlinking photos of rosenblum’s videojournalists you might be able to take out the comment hit counter from when you offered free joost invites.

  hang in there rosenblum.

• 15. My Name  |  October 4th, 2007 at 6:57 am

  Click my name for an example of Current journalism, this time on Myanmar.

  Search the site for “Current International” and click the first result for a page that lists all such “pods.”

• 16. rosenblum's nightmare  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:02 am

  There is one, and only one, reason for using a one-man-band crew, and that is because it is cheaper.

  If Rosie and others of his ilk would admit that and stop pretending that making one person do more work also makes for a better product, that would at least be honest.

• 17. brink  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:09 am

  “It’s going to change a lot of jobs and the way a lot of people work.”

  No, see you love to say this, Rosenblum, but empirical evidence shows (this one example notwithstanding) that what happens in reality is, people LOSE their jobs. Stations that go to one-man-bands do not end up with twice as many crews on the street.

  You have become very adept at dodging this fact. But anyone who has checked out your record knows better.

• 18. Rosenblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:20 am

  I think if you read my comment above it says fairly clearly “it’s going to make television news much more cost effective”.

  Are people going to lose their jobs? Of course they are. Its a classic ‘disruptive technology’. Will other kinds of jobs be created in new places that the new economies afford - for sure. Does this shift upset people? Wanna take a look at my emails some day?

  But, (and you can trust me on this), this is going to happen. The convergence of technology and economics makes it absolutely inevitable.

  The best thing you can do, if you are gonna get hit by this, is to get ready.

• 19. Contrarian  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:29 am

  Maybe it is “going to happen,” but then, again, maybe you and your campaign to make money promoting the idea are part of the problem. You have a vested interest in ensure it does ‘happen.”

  Just because something is “going to happen” does not make it a positive thing, and this is a classic example of that.

  “Cost-effective” is indeed consultant-speak for “cheaper,” but as has been pointed out, cheaper has not translated into “better” journalism or photography in the places you’ve implemented your one-man-band plan.

• 20. Allen  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:43 am

  Michael,

  Do you also take credit for the vj faillure at WKRN? Word is they’ve gone back to shooting with 2 person crews using real cameras again.

• 21. rosemblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:46 am

  not a moment too soon…

• 22. oldnews  |  October 4th, 2007 at 7:46 am

  CNN’s been doing this for the last 5 years

• 23. Tom Grunick  |  October 4th, 2007 at 8:44 am

  There are some great points made in the above posts. At the local level, when are GMs going to realize that talking heads, two of them to boot, need to go. Have someone write their OWN copy instead of a producer. The chief problem at the local level are the salaries paid to people who do very little, if anything, other than simply read copy and ask a dumb question or two and attempt to make happy talk.

• 24. Hanson  |  October 4th, 2007 at 8:54 am

  It’ll be interesting to see what kind of people ABC hires for these positions. I deliberately took a similar position back in 2001 when the CBC was opening one-person bureaus across Canada (after years working as an overseas producer for NBC).

  I could have taken a more high-profile correspondent’s position in a big city, but I decided I wanted to learn how to shoot and edit stories on someone else’s dime in a beautiful part of the world (British Columbia). The problem was that despite my journalism credentials, the network itself perceived me as “entry level.” Sure I could file stories for network shows, but more often than not, it was for cable, or elements for some other correspondent.

  Suffice to say I quit as soon as I could and started my own film production company! I suspect that ABC will use those offices as the front-lines for newsgathering in those regions, and the minute a decent-sized story strikes, they’ll fly in the higher-profile cavalry.

• 25. Rosenblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 9:04 am

  Dear Steve,
  First, comment #21 is not me. It is a hack.
  Second, I don’t think that a) WKRN has retreated from the small cameras and b) that KRN was a failure.
  Third, what is wrong with cost cutting? In case you have not realized it, television new is a business, and it is a business under incredible competitive pressure now. Unless you wise up and realize that you are in a business and you are in a fight for your life, you are soon going to be looking for another line of work.

• 26. Rocker  |  October 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am

  Hanson…using these offices as front-lines, then flying in higher-profile cavalry when a major story breaks…that sounds like an excellent strategy.

• 27. Brink  |  October 4th, 2007 at 9:31 am

  Rosie, nothing is wrong with cost-cutting per se.

  However, in this case, cost-cutting has also inevitably resulted in a drop in quality of the product as well.

  You don’t like to address that issue.

  But your schtick is to charge management to “show” them how to save money, not how to produce a high-quality product, so that’s not a surprise.

• 28. Contrarian  |  October 4th, 2007 at 9:44 am

  Here’s a quote I’d bet Michael does NOT put into his promotional materials when he tries to sell his VJ program to stations:

  “For better or worse, I think they’re locked into it,” says Rosenblum. “Now the infrastructure is built that way.”

  Yeah, implement this plan I’m pitching, and if it doesn’t work out–hey, you’re stuck with it!

• 29. Contrarian  |  October 4th, 2007 at 9:57 am

  Rosie’s got to be careful with his numbers. Remember when he said, right here on LR:

  “Is it better to field 20 VJs or one crack crew? ”

  Let’s see….20 VJ’s at a low-ball price of $40,000 would be $800,000. Is that “Crack crew” getting $400,000 each?

  Or is Rosie suggesting we just turn over the camcorders to kids who we’d pay $19,000 a year?

  Is that the future of journalism, Michael? Who’s gonna watch that?

• 30. Rosenblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am

  I don’t think I ever compared 20 VJs to one crew. However, I think that the interest of the viewer is better served to spend your money on laptop edits instead of edit suites. I see no reason to buy another edit suite, do you? Does it make sense? Does it make sense to have a newsroom filled with people who want to be there because they want to tell stories for television, and then not give them, or severely limit their access to the tools for making the product? I don’t think so. I don’t think that is a very cost effective or competitive way to run a newsroom, do you?

  The new technology gives us a chance to put a camera and laptop in the hands of everyone who works in a TV newsroom. If you came to television news because you want to report, make television and tell stories - this is your chance. If you came to television news because you wanted a secure job where you worked 9-5 with an hour for lunch… this is your chance to get out.

• 31. Rocker  |  October 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am

  These threads always seem to play out…

  1/Another example of a VJ-like initiative announced
  2/Reaction from some quarters who appear to have a vested interest about how jobs will be lost…theirs, presumably
  3/Counter-arguments on the benefits of the approach
  4/Comebacks claiming quality is inevitably, irretrievably going to be compromised

  My suggestion to those who are implacably hostile to any instance of the VJ approach: I’d start leading with the quality of journalism/production argument, which is different and at least has some plausible relevance. Your fears about losing your job are transparent and unfortunately, while understandable, not persuasive in a world where the smart money long ago settled the question of whether or not the ability to adapt is a necessity.

• 32. Contrarian  |  October 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

  ‘I don’t think I ever compared 20 VJs to one crew. ”

  Yes, you did, Michael. I quoted you from this very site’s archives. It is exactly what you said.

  Then you head off into straw-man territory, with the “laptop vs. edit bay” argument, knowing very well that that’s not the issue and it never has been.

• 33. Rosenblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pm

  Find me the quote.
  What I might have compared, as I often do, is cameras to cameras. A $60K betacam will buy you 20 HDV cams. That comparison I make all the time… and stand by.

• 34. Contrarian  |  October 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

  Find it yourself, big boy. It’s right in the Lost Remote archives.

  Google found it, too.

  See, this is why you need to be careful what you write. Your outlandish (and unsupportable) claims WILL catch up with you eventually.

• 35. Michael Rosenblum  |  October 4th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

  OK Ace…
  Here’s the quote:
  “here 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.”

  Its all about the equipment, just like above. And it also dovetails with the laptop edits. That’s not ’straw man territory’.

  If you’re gonna swiftboat, try to get it right.

• 36. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 5:20 am

  “Is it better to field 20 VJs or one crack crew? ”

  Yep, you said it. But now you admit it doesn’t make much sense.

• 37. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 5:22 am

  Oh, and although you desperately WISH it was about editing equipment, it isn’t.

  it’s about quality, and the lack of said quality, that results when your plan is implemented.

• 38. Safran  |  October 5th, 2007 at 6:45 am

  I fail to see what ABC News loses here. They have bureaus where they didn’t. They may not be fielding a crew the way some people want them to - but they are going to be reporting from seven places around the world where they hadn’t. Yeah- in the glory days those bureaus would have had lots of staffers. But now the bureaus are gone. So ABC is opening new ones and is taking advantage of the technology. What, exactly is the problem?

  Threadjack away about how VJs are the end of quality news. (As though the way it is being done now is perfect.) I’ll be checking out ABCNews.com a lot more once they start filing reports quickly from places they hadn’t covered.

• 39. Rosenblum  |  October 5th, 2007 at 6:49 am

  No. Its about equipment costs and maximizing coverage. The reference to blueray above is not to the cameraman’s name. 20 cameras gives you better local news coverage than 1. When my ‘plan’ is implemented there are more cameras and more edits in play.

  Newsrooms have fixed budgets to invest in newsgathering and production. How you invest that money is critical in the results. You could, in theory, spend all of your money and hire Steven Spielberg to produce the best 1:20 you ever saw in your life. You could then just keep re-running it forever. Great quality.

  In your own newsroom you start the day by looking at the local paper. That is where you get your stories from.

  The reason you do that is because the local paper fields a lot more reporters than you do. Newspapers generally don’t start their day watching local TV news.

  So yes, to come back to the beginning of this conversation, I would rather buy 20 small cameras (hence field 20 VJs) than buy one admittedly magnificent Sony Blueray… or something similar.. and hence field one crack crew.

  Do you get it now?

• 40. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 7:10 am

  “20 cameras give you better coverage than one” IF they’re operated by professionals who have the background to know what quality photography is and how to achieve it. It’s a full-time job.

  Conversely, good reporting comes from education, training and experience, not from the ability to shoot good video. Reporting is also a full-time job.

  I’d rather have one crack field crew that can tell a solid, informative story, well-illustrated with good video, than 20 people running around, trying to juggle shooting with reporting and coming up with the kind of product we see on WKRN, KRON and NY1.

  Your idea saves money and generates volumes of video, assuming management doesn’t decide to save even more money by cutting half the staff after you leave.

  But I’d rather see quality than quantity. That’s what the viewers ought to expect.

  And that’s something you will never get.

• 41. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 7:23 am

  “Threadjack away about how VJs are the end of quality news. (As though the way it is being done now is perfect.) ”

  Yeah, so let’s make it worse so even fewer viewers will watch.

• 42. Rosenblum  |  October 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am

  I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that more stations in the US and overseas will start to use the model. In fact, I can guarantee it. We will soon find ourselves in a competitive situation in which there will be stations that cling to the old model, fielding a handful of crews, and those that embrace the new - expanding coverage. You may place your bets where you like, I have clearly placed mine. KGTV, KRON and KRN - and now ABC overseas bureaus are only the very tip of the iceberg - the early adapters, who suffered all the usual bumps that early adapters will suffer. As more do this, and as more and more good journalists learn how to do this well, this will smooth out. As they used to say in TV news - stand by, more to come.

• 43. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 9:47 am

  Sure, as soon as we get to a point you can’t defend–lack of quality (and ratings) in the stations where they do this–go back to the “it’s going to happen” argument again.

  It may be inevitable, but the viewers will not get a better quality news product for it.

• 44. Rosenblum  |  October 5th, 2007 at 10:14 am

  I have spent most of my adult life in local tv newsrooms around the country and around the world. In case you are not aware of it, they are not exactly producing Nightline. I for one think that the quality of the journalism improves with a good VJ - they are in complete control of the story from start to finish. The idea of having one person write it, another shoot it and yet another edit it is, when you look at it, insane.

• 45. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

  ” I for one think that the quality of the journalism improves with a good VJ”

  Unfortunately, having seen what comes from the shops you persuade to adopt this model, I’d have to disagree.

  Unless there just aren’t any “good” VJs.

• 46. Rosenblum  |  October 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

  I think this one is pretty good.
  What do you think?
  ctzn.tv/view/rwanda/1Z8E88YH

• 47. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

  “This one.”

  How many stories have each of those stations produced since you were there? Thousands. And I’ve seen what they look like.

  So the fact that you turn to a BBC package, instead of the work done by WKRN, KRON, KGTV, or whomever you’ve visited lately does not impress me.

  How long did the BCC correspondent have to turn that package? I’m betting it wasn’t the couple of hours a typical local TV crew in the US has.

  The daily work of “your” stations here speaks much more loudly than this example.

• 48. Rocker  |  October 5th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

  Surprised in the course of this latest little flamewar here that no one’s pointed out a big obstacle to doing this, at least in many major market stations….unions.

• 49. Rosenblum  |  October 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

  Well, if you don’t like that one because it’s too ‘foreign’ for you., try this one from KGTV:
  rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/kgtvs-kyle-majors-vj/

• 50. Contrarian  |  October 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

  You’re missing the point.

  These examples are not representative of the daily work done by the majority of the staff. Those stories are, by and large, poorly done, badly shot, often with bad audio, not well-written and rushed overall.

  I am sure you’ve been careful to save specific examples of good work so you can attempt to support your claims, but those aren’t what the viewer sees day after day.

  And I don’t think I said anything about ‘foreign” news. I said an example from BBC isn’t representative of what local stations do every day.

• 51. Safran  |  October 5th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

  I find this is often the case with anonymous people who argue with Rosey. They say his model is the death of quality. He says it isn’t. They say “show me an example.” He does. They say “anyone can find one or two examples of something good.”

  This goes on forever. And it’s where I sound a Vs. Alert.

  The whole point of the article (there is an article in here somewhere) is that ABC News has found room for both. THAT’s what’s interesting to me. This isn’t a vs. argument at all. It’s one of incorporating different approaches that include financial realities in the balance.

• 52. Contrarian  |  October 6th, 2007 at 5:11 am

  I never asked Rosie for an example. I know he keeps some ready for just such a challenge. (And even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.)

  Steve, have you seen the work coming out of the stations that use “his” model? I mean, what they do on a routine, day-to-day basis.

  It’s poor, to say the least.

  And I am not pleased to see ABC News going this route. Sure, their overseas one-man-bands will have more time to do the job than a local crew (few, if any, same-day turns), so I am sure their material will look better. But that’ll just lead to people who value money over good journalism saying, “See? ABC does it! That means it’s a good idea!”

  Meanwhile, more and more of his clients’ shops doing local news will produce the bad material we’re seeing now.

  How are those ratings at WKRN and KRON doing? After all, they should be great, because they have a bunch of “cameras on the street,” right? Sure.

  No, Rosie’s schtick is to be the Savior who goes into a shop and shows management his One True Way to do news cheaper. Says it’ll lead to better journalism… eventually. And higher ratings… someday.

  Then he rolls up the tent and moves on to the next sucker, admitting in print that, once a shop adopts his model, they’re stuck with it even if it doesn’t work.

  What Michael Rosenblum is promoting is bad. It doesn’t serve the viewer, it doesn’t generate higher ratings, and doesn’t lead to better journalism.

  But it is cheaper.

  And, for all his boilerplate posts (that he cuts and pastes from other forums) that’s all he and his management clients actually care about.

• 53. anonymous-chetti  |  October 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am

  “..anonymous people who argue with Rosey.”

  he ain’t anonymous. he’s “nino” from rosenblum’s blog.

  always gotta get the last word.

  i grew up in an italian home and i saw it all the time.

  even with all its great features the internet has yet to allow for the reader to appreciate the way “my people” talk with their hands.

• 54. rosenblum  |  October 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

  The comment “there just aren’t any good vjs” cries for some good ones. However..each example is always ‘not good enough’ or flawed in some way.

  I am just returning from the white house press photog assoc conference in dc where we all saw many stunning and powerful examples of great vj work.

  Alas the dinosaurs cry and bellow but in the end they are a doomed species. Some will adapt and find new incarnations…but many will simply disappear.

  No loss, believe me.

• 55. Contrarian  |  October 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

  Your high-handed attitude aside, I’m still waiting to hear about the high ratings at WKRN, KRON, and KGTV because viewers are so excited to watch the material they generate with one-man-bands.

  If wanting to give viewers a quality product makes me a dinosaur, then I accept that label with pride. Fewer people with your do-it-cheaper plan and more dinosaurs would mean better journalism.

• 56. rosenblum  |  October 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

  Krn, kgtv and kron are doing quite well, thanks. And more are on the way….trust me. And if you think what we see nightly on most local news is the michelangelo of television journalism then it is well that you are on the road to extinction.

• 57. Contrarian  |  October 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

  They are? Not according to the ratings. WKRN, for example, is still in third place. KRON’s still in the toilet. No movement for KGtV, either.

  And your constant attempts to use reductio ad absurdum arguments don’t work. I never said current newscasts were perfect.

  But the stories generated in the “dinosaur” fashion are much better in quality than the “new” way.

  I guess there’s not much point in continuing this. You cannot ever admit you might be wrong, because your livlihood depends on your ability to convince people you’re right, and paying the mortgage wins over honesty every time.

• 58. Contrarian  |  October 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

  Incidentally, because it is your primary defense against thoe who would have the temerity to challenge you, NO, I am not a reporter or photog and your one-man-band concept has no impact on my job at all.

• 59. rosenblum  |  October 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

  Then WHY would you possibly spend so much time and effort here? I know…you’re a really concerned viewer!

• 60. Safran  |  October 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

  Contrarian, let me give you another thought here. This does not defend nor does it accuse anyone.

  Moving station ratings takes a very long time. Years. I’ve seen so many attempts at moving the needle that did little. The biggest change is when a network improves.

  But what does change dramatically is a station’s financial picture. VJs do not, not, not mean instant #1 ratings. But neither do set changes, new anchors or a graphics package that screams “Doppler 1,000,000!” It all takes a tremendous amount of time.

  I am always concerned about the quality of journalism. I hope that anyone who has read LR for any amount of time recognizes that the capital J journalism comes first here. I have seen plenty of VJ pieces from KRON and WKRN. I dare say I’ve seen more than most people who debate them. Are there times when a full crew is best? Absolutely. Are there times when one person can do the job? Again, absolutely.

  Adding VJs gives a station flexibility. In the case of ABC News (again, that’s the topic here, right?) it gives them bureaus where they could afford none. Please tell me what is wrong with that?

  It’s not about the “Vs.”

• 61. Contrarian  |  October 7th, 2007 at 5:10 am

  ‘Then WHY would you possibly spend so much time and effort here? I know…you’re a really concerned viewer! ”

  No, I am a journalist who is tired of seeing cost-cutting measures hack away at our ability to report the news well.

  Your question proves that you really don’t get it. You assume that the only people who would have an opnion on this are those who might lose their jobs or whose jobs might change as a result of it.

  You couldn’t be more wrong.

• 62. Michael Rosenblum  |  October 7th, 2007 at 6:37 am

  Great.
  Well then as a journalist you will have a great deal of respect for the power of the ‘free press’. That, after all, is what makes print so forceful - anyone can and does try. There are no ‘barriers to entry’, save quality.

  Television is no free press. The cost of the cameras and edits for years have kept television, our most powerful medium, concentrated in the hands of the select few. That, more than anything else, is why the content has, since its inception, been unmititgated crap. The standards are so low, and have been so low for so long that we are willing to tolerate just about anything as TV news - just turn on your local fare or the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric if you need proof of the triumph of mediocrity on TV.

  These small cameras and edits will unleash millions - just as typewriters unleashed millions of potential writers. Will most of them be garbage you bet! Will a few create the kind of content that you have never seen before ? It is inevitable - and for a democracy absolutely necessary.

  I know free presses are mess - they are supposed to be.

  But this is not the Soviet Union. The idea that we would turn over the most powerful medium of communication the world has ever known to the likes of Matt Lauer and Mike Wallace, and declare that they are somehow the ‘elect voice of God’ is an act of cultural suicide.

  Now, a million, ten million cameras are going to go forth. Its going to be a very different world. And thank God for that.

  And that is what I mean when I say you are a dinosaur. Not that one guy with a small camera will replace on crew. On the contrary, a thousand, ten thousand (Youtube already has more than 100 milliion videos - and they are just getting started)…..

  The days of “THE VOICE OF GOD NEWS” are coming to a close.

  And not a minute too soon.

  If you don’t believe me, just tune into Katie tonight and take a look.

• 63. Contrarian  |  October 8th, 2007 at 4:05 am

  How elegant.

  And if we were talking about “citizen news,” your cut-and-pasted boilerplate might even be relevant. But we aren’t–we’re talking about what YOU do.

  You go into TV newsrooms and convince the management to cut costs by cutting staff and swapping around jobs.

  Your schtick is not about “empowering the people.” Your is about making big bucks (remember VOA?) by convincing corporate bosses you can save them money, if they pay you to do it.

  Don’t try to pretend you do something noble.

• 64. aidian  |  October 8th, 2007 at 4:44 am

  I’ll say it again — i’m agnostic about crew size, as a producer type i’ll be overworked and underpaid no matter what model is used.

  But i saw something interesting the other day —

  Our desk swaps emails with KRON every day about what they’re on and what we’re on to see if there’s anything we’re interested in. About a week ago I saw their rundown and it was STACKED. They really did have like 20 reporters that day.

  I would kill to have that many people. If I lose a little video quality to do it I may still say the station, and the viewer, comes out ahead.

  That said, the two times in recent memory I took something from KRON to cut down, the video SUCKED. It was OK to cut down to an e block vo, but I can’t believe they aired those packages — it was the sort of stuff that I wouldn’t have aired when I worked in market 195.

• 65. Contrarian  |  October 8th, 2007 at 4:59 am

  Well, there’s Rosie’s 20 billion cameras on the streets—

  –and a truckload of stories you wouldn’t want to have to watch coming from them.

  Quantity, not quality. Want to stuff a newscast? Great!

  Want viewers to watch it? Good luck. They’re smarter than that.

• 66. Michael Rosenblum  |  October 8th, 2007 at 5:04 am

  First, I don’t ‘cut and paste’. All writing 100% original.
  Second, I don’t have to go into newsrooms and ‘convince management to cut costs’. Are you out of your mind. Local news is a dying business. Audiences are off, on average 30% from ten years ago and keep going south. The average demo for local news is 85 - dead, with a preponderance on the latter. You are not only a dinosaur, you are part of the ‘dying world’. Wake up pal. Its over unless radical action is taken. Local TV news shows are, for the most part BORING. They are boring because in this day and age you can’t cover a major city with 6 or 8 cameras,

  I recently ran a bootcamp in DC. I had 40 people in it. So every day, I sent 40 people with cameras to cover DC. Do you realize that during the bootcamp, I was effectively running the biggest local news operation in DC? And for what cost?

  It is over.

  Change or die.

• 67. Contrarian  |  October 8th, 2007 at 5:34 am

  The “biggest” operation.

  Yes.

  I get it. To you, news consists of sending lots of people out to take lots of pictures.

  To me, it takes a lot more than carrying a camcorder to be a journalist. (It also takes more than owning a paintbrush to make one an artist, and more than owning a PC to make one a writer.)

  And you cut-and-paste from yourself, pal.

  Just because something may be inevitable doesn’t make that thing a positive change, and this is one of those cases.

• 68. Rosenblum  |  October 8th, 2007 at 6:40 am

  I think you should go work for Harper’s or PBS.
  Seriously.
  There is a place in this world for those who think of this as ‘art’.
  It is a very small place, but it is a place and it is certainly honorable.
  When the automobile was invented, it made the end of the horse drawn carriage inevitable.
  Certainly it was a far more beautiful and elegant way to travel. And there are still a few horse drawn coaches in Central Park.
  There are many cases where the confluence of technology and economics makes a change inevitable, though we may long for the past.
  And by the way, I write it all every time. It may come out of my head verbatim, but I have been doing this for 20 years now. Come to CCNY on Wednesday to hear my speech. You’ll catch a few phrases that I dropped on Saturday at the White House Press Photogs talk - and the Wed before that at Public Broadcasting talk in Iowa. And that’s the way it is (hey, did he cut and paste that thing again?)

• 69. Contrarian  |  October 8th, 2007 at 7:23 am

  Once again, your only defense is the old “reductio ad absurdum.”

  I never used the word “art.”

  I said “quality.”

  But you can’t defend the work that comes from these shops–both in writing and shooting–so you go back to your old “art/PBS/Spielberg” line.

  Preaching that the best way to save money is to adopt a system that produces a lesser product for 20 years is nothing to take pride in.

  The way corporate America works, I have no doubt you’ll win, because cheaper always trumps better.

  And then the ratings will tank even further.

  You’ll be so proud.

• 70. Rosenblum  |  October 8th, 2007 at 8:01 am

  Quality is a very relative term.
  If you are buying a car, what is the best ‘quality’?
  A Bentley?
  A Porsche?
  A Toyota?
  Depends on what you want to do, what you want to use it for and how much you want to spend.
  Cost effective is no crime, by the way.

• 71. Contrarian  |  October 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am

  “Quality is a very relative term.”

  Okay, even I didn’t think you’d bend over this far.

• 72. rosenblum  |  October 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am

  Do me a favor and look at your watch. What’s the make? Rolex? Blancpain? IWC? Breitling? Timex? What is “good enough” for you? Which is quality? Which did you personally opt to buy? What’s your definition of ‘quality’?

• 73. Safran  |  October 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  LR Faithful: Remind me to run the words “Michael Rosenblum” during November’s web sweeps period.

• 74. rosenblum  |  October 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm

  I’ll see you tomorrow in NY

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed