Make local TV news more like TV again
Cory Bergman April 11th, 2008
It struck me as I was talking to a few TV news friends the other day. As we all know, TV news has stepped up urgency, pacing and visual craziness in an effort to “hold” your attention and comply with your busy schedule. But really, doesn’t it expedite the decline of TV news? I mean, if you want a quick scan of the day’s news, there’s no more efficent medium than the web. Yet in a linear way, TV is trying to replicate this experience on TV. Shouldn’t TV news focus on television’s strengths instead of trying to offset its weaknesses?
TV news’ biggest strength is visual, emotional storytelling. (Immediacy is important, too, but the web is developing a reputation for being as immediate or even more so.) Yet how often on local TV news (or cable TV news for that matter) do you see a well-produced, well-shot, emotional, impactful story? You know, the kinds of stories that you just can’t do justice when you try to rewrite them for the web? They’re few and far between, but these are the stories that people want to see on TV. They’re what TV is all about.
So why don’t newsrooms produce more of these stories? Keep reading…
1. They believe that urgency and a high “story count” will help hold a viewer’s attention, but in actuality, these techniques strip the TV goodness from these stories and make them a commodity. One of the worst rules is a time restriction on reporter stories, regardless of the strength of the story. In the end, nobody remembers anything. It’s just visual clutter.
2. Newsrooms believe that the major TV newscasts must provide a comprehensive, competitive view of the day’s biggest and most interesting stories. Ooh, the newspaper or the station across the street has this story, so we better put a reporter on it so we’re competitive. So in essense, everyone is reporting on the same stories. This, again, commoditizes news and gives viewers no reason to carve out time in their day to watch you. They’ll just go online for their news on their own schedules. Instead, dedicate your resources on relevant original stories that leverage the strengths of television. Empower reporters and photographers to enterprise and reward them for it.
3. Newsrooms are afraid to cover stories that aren’t teasable. But “teasable” has a narrow definition: urgent, dangerous, unbelievable, sexy! And frankly, these kinds of lowest-common-denominator teases are repelling normal people from television to the web. In reality, good enterprise pieces with emotional human stories are also teasable. In fact, they’re more teasable than that other crap because they’re more relevant. It’s time to redefine the word “teasable.” Respect the audience, and they’ll respect you back.
4. Newsrooms are afraid to replay stories across newscasts. Instead, they’re updated, stripped down, freshened or even repackaged by an anchor or another reporter. But in reality, a decreasing number of viewers ages 25-54 are watching multiple newscasts. They’re too busy, and they’re getting more news online. At most, they’ll watch a morning newscast and a evening or late newscast. So avoiding duplication — and requiring that a story be freshened — stretches resources even thinner. These resources could be focused on covering better stories and producing better TV.
5. And the biggest hurdle: newsrooms say they don’t have the resources to pull this off. After all, there are too many newscasts to fill, too many mouths to feed. First off, it’s all how you prioritize your resources (refer to my earlier points). By letting good stories run longer, blowing off run-of-the-mill stories (who cares if your competition has it?) and re-airing the best reporter stories, you’ve already gone a long ways in extending your resources. And second, well-shot, well-produced stories don’t require days to put together. Local TV news isn’t 60 Minutes, and that will never change. But there are many talented storytellers who turn impactful stories on a daily deadline. They just need to be empowered to do so (and don’t let the assignment desk interrupt them for some stupid VOSOT.) Oh, and if you don’t have many talented storytellers — just live shot jockeys — it’s time for some personnel changes.
In the end, the decision to embrace quality storytelling will take strong leadership. It’s time to make TV news more like TV again, or just about everyone will get their news from the web. It’s that simple. I believe there’s room for two vibrant businesses: TV news and online news. But the more TV tries to be a linear version of the web, the faster viewers will flee.
13 Comments Add your own
1. El Dangeroso | April 11th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yes. Now, how to convince our news directors that a blogger’s opinion should carry just as much weight as that slick-haired, highly-paid consultant or puffy, multi-ethnic focus group?
2. TR | April 12th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I think #4 is a very good point.
However, perhaps my four months out of TV still don’t give me enough distance to be a real viewer, because I won’t sit still to watch 95% of what passes as these lovingly shot and edited features. There are the rare occasions when the story is really worth 3 or 4 minutes of my time. Very very very rare. I personally don’t think TV can be saved. It’s not anybody’s fault, it’s just that linear media have been rendered obsolete. JMNSHO.
3. Barney Lerten | April 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
And yet… don’t surveys show TV is still a major, if not the major local news info source for a vast number of people? Are we sounding the death knell too soon?
I fear overreaction as much as underreaction. What I find myself fighting is the “always/nevers” - the “we should always do this” or “never do that” - or the swings between the two extremes (which we’ve done on issues such as repeating stories). It reminds me of when they reorganize a favorite grocery store, and figure folks won’t mind. They mind. One person’s rut is another person’s comfort zone;-)
4. Cory | April 12th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Barney, yes, TV is still the primary local source for news, but ratings are dropping steadily in all dayparts (except in some cases, the morning hours).
That’s why TV newsrooms need to act now. To presume that this decrease is just cyclical would be a big mistake. Whenever a company or an industry identifies a sustained decline in consumption of its product, it must reinnovate.
5. tdc | April 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
might i suggest using the link thru terry heaton’s upgrade-in-progress to ar-d where you can see steve safran making “news” with a $150 camera?
6. Curtis Gibby | April 12th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I shared your column with my newsroom today and invariably got positive responses — yes, this is the kind of news we should be putting on the air. But having people say it and actually doing it are two very different beasts, I’m afraid. I think it was an important reminder of the ideal, regardless of the realities we face.
7. Jeremiah | April 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“Newsrooms are afraid to cover stories that aren’t teasable. But “teasable” has a narrow definition: urgent, dangerous, unbelievable, sexy! And frankly, these kinds of lowest-common-denominator teases are repelling normal people from television to the web.”
Judging from a shallow comparison between the comments on say, Sacbee.com and News10.com, the people we’d wished had been repelled have swarmed en masse, turgid opinions at the ready.
8. Kent | April 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Hear! Hear!
It’s worth mentioning that the kind of story-telling you’re suggesting invariably costs more to produce - which flies in the face of all the cutbacks. And it’s the special-project teams that frequently get cut first i.e. the enterprise reporting staff. So it would seem that once again, broadcasters are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
(Shameless plug warning!) It’s also exactly why we founded NewsProNet 11 years ago…
9. Alyssa | April 14th, 2008 at 10:10 am
And sometimes the attempt at a local angle of a national story just ends up trying to hard.
Ex:” Joe’s cousin in NJ lived near the factory that caught fire and he said his cousin said it was really scary and smelled awful…”
10. Larry Hatteberg | April 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Cory,
I thought your column was excellent! It’s a great springboard for other discussions on how we can save local TV.
I’ve been a video storyteller (photojournalist) and anchor for 45 years and I still do both.
Much of that time has been spent educating others on the value of video storytelling. At this point, watching local TV is painful because we have hit bottom! We tell viewers stories they don’t care about or have heard on the net. In-depth, insightful reporting is no longer part of what we do.
Simply having a reporter standing there talking to the viewer is an incredible poor use of a powerful medium. We lose the emotion of real people –people who talk from the heart–people who can ’sell’ the story to other viewers in ways reporters can’t.
We need visionaries, who as you say, can understand the power of the Internet, then link that power with video storytelling on TV and use both mediums to their fullest.
People and time and key to good storytelling. We can’t automate the process. There is no software that can take the place of great storytellers!
Your premise is good! Now all we have to do is find those brave souls in management who are willing to buck a powerful trend from the corporate office.
I’m on your side….and ready for the revolution!
11. t | April 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
To buck a powerful trend might be too late. We have conditioned people
12. t | April 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
To buck a powerful trend might be too late. We have conditioned people.
13. Foxy | July 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
very good point.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed