I wanted to respond to some of the comments Rick from Philly left. "Shooting an interview by yourself is awkward for the journalist and makes the person being interviewed look uncomfortable." I have had to shoot interviews on my own for years now. The fact that I am doing the interview solo does not make anyone more or less comfortable. I believe people are more relaxed with a smaller camera around instead of the large tv cameras I am used to working with.
Rick say, "Many of the interview shots, from the other VJs, are wide or out of focus. The writing is OK, but isn't up to the standard of seasoned reporter." I know how to use a video camera to get good shots. Everyone is still learning equipment and dealing with all the information that comes with training. I have brought back some interviews that I was not pleased with but I have identified the problems that I made so hopefully I will not do it again. With a little time to learn we will all get better and not shoot anything wide or out of focus.
This, of course, is just my opinion. To read Rick’s entire comments go to The Train is Coming and click on comments.
12 comments:
Just to make my comments clear. I never meant to be belittle your talent or the ability of others. I am impressed by the quality of the images and I'm very interested to see how the transition works out. Your accomplishments should be applauded. I wish you and your station well. I agree that VJs are here to stay, but I find the argument that this change is being made to create a better, more efficent way to cover stories and not a financal decision is a little hard to swallow.
A fan of your work,
Rick from Philly
Todd,
I agree with Rick from Philly. Don't confuse the criticisms of the process with citicisms of your professionalism. There is no question to any of us that know something about how the TV news business works that this whole thing is a cost savings idea by your parent company. It is not a way to make the news coverage better. It was an idea sold to your management by the VJ training company "to save money". As you should do as you become a reporter... follow the money. Yes... it IS that simple.
Many of us out here realize that you HAD to drink the kool-aid to stay employed and maybe you have even convinced yourself that this is a good idea just to maintain your sanity. I understand all that and if you have the mental ability to do that.. good for you.
But, the bottom line is... it's cheaper and not as good a product as the photog/reporter team method of gathering news. The trainers are making a good living selling this idea... training people... then moving on and not having to live with the consequences of what happens afterwards. (just like consultants have done for years)
Again... don't confuse the aim of the critisims.
Why does it have to be a big deal? We're entitled to our own opinions, but I just don't get it. I guess I look at things in a totally different light. If it's about money, then great. Let them save money by only having one person out in the field and make money by bringing in more personable stories to attract viewers. So be it.
I don't think any of the new VJ's took a pay cut for this- so what's the harm in them conforming? If any person who is involved in the change doesn't want to do it... what is stopping them from moving on?
It's my opinion that maybe Todd didn't HAVE to drink the Kool-Aid... maybe he WANTED to drink the Kool-Aid. Maybe he realized that change is inevitable and even if he choose to move on to something different one day, he would take away a new skill and be better because of the experience.
Steph.
Can't help but notice the pic or you sitting at a microphone...also a very young age. So do you already work at 2 or just trying to get a job in local TV news? Either way...That wouldn't effect your view of the issue would it? The issue here is that the whole VJ thing is being spun as a "better" way to do the news. It is not... it is a cheaper way to do the news. In a market where you are competing for viewers with stations that will have a superior product, you lose. The station does not make money by doing more personable stories. The station makes money by selling spots to as many eyes as they can get to watch.
A VJ training company makes money by convincing a number 3 station that they will get more viewers by doing more stories. Bulls**t. You get more viewers by producing a better product, higher quality, more reliable information, fewer mistakes, and more trust from John Q. Public. The "better news" spin simply isn't true... it's cheaper. The company line is trying to "fool" the public.
UPDATE:
Steph. Saw your website. Noticed your dream job listed: Video Journalist. Nuff Said.
Todd, keep on keeping on.
Steph... I'd knock the bottom out of it.
No matter what the reason ~ it is the wave of the future. Viewing news on the internet is what people are doing now. It's quicker, up to date, and what we all do. After all, aren't we all on the computer now?
Well folks, let's look at it this way... If this is is a "better" way to do TV news... I guess very soon we will see ABCs Terry Moran or Ann Compton running around the White House with their Handycam to get their presidential interviews. I guess this time WKRN is way ahead of the networks.
"The wave of the future"? When I grew up I was under the impression that we would all be driving cars that could fly by now.
If anything it's the wave of the future for stations trying to cut costs. With consumers spending more and more on technology (inluding television sets) why would they settle for poor quality of television? They won't. I'm guessing WKRN and KRON will both get a little bump in the ratings from the curious viewers, but I'll be surprised if the ratings hold. I suspect they'll drop even lower than they are now.
AJ
Yeah, ok- I never said I wasn't biased... I always think learning a new thing is cool, and I try to stay out of the office politics behind those things. I see your point Former- it's not about whether they are saving/making money- but more about the fact that they are trying to say that's not the case? I suppose I missed the part where News2 said it was "better" news and had nothing to do with money. Wasn't paying attention when that came out, I guess. And thanks for the "young" comment... flattering. I'm on the cusp of 30, so not feeling so young these days. My "dream job" is more of a camera operator for the News. I should clarify. Thanks for letting me ramble in your blog, Todd. ;)
Steph.
Camera operator for the news? Those people will not exist in this "new world" of VJs unless you are talking about the studio guys. So far... I don't know of any consultants that have figured out how to get rid of them... other than robo-cams like the networks have. I believe there is just too big a price tag on the equipment for those right now. Besides, Charlie Dunaway has to run 3 cameras by himself anyway.
To the person inquiring about a camera position. All that glitters ain't gold. Sometimes I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Most of the time it runs pretty easy. But the times....they are a changin'.
Chapel Hill Charlie
Post a Comment