Most If Not All Austin, Texas Stations Will Share Video
Austin, Texas stations KVUE TV (ABC), KTBC (Fox 7), KEYE (CBS), and KXAN (NBC) are now planning to share news video. Most, if not all of the stations in the nation’s 49th market, would send only one photographer to what might be considered “routine” stories—news conferences, photo ops and the like—and then, they will share the video.
“Yes it is true. This will enable our stations to achieve broader coverage while not wasting time and energy duplicating efforts when covering news conferences and similar events,” says Eric Lassberg, president and general manager of LIN Television, Austin. Lassberg was responding to whether KXAN TV’s news department and KTBC News were planning to share news video.
Representatives from five Austin Television stations met Wednesday, February 25, 2009. The details of the arrangement are yet to be worked out. Not all of the stations’ personnel have been informed, but apparently it is a done deal. Amy Villareal, KEYE TV general manager confirmed, “KEYE is participating.”
“Yes, KVUE will be a part of this video sharing agreement,” said Frank Volpicella, news director at KVUE TV. “All five stations have agreed in principal. We are hashing out the details.” Certainly, the deal will not deter stations from sending full crews if they deem the story of greater importance. Frankly, I hope that happens more often than not.
KTBC TV News Director Pam Vaught deferred comment to Mark Rodman, KTBC general manager. He has not responded yet.
It is said that Univision will also be invited to join in the loose consortium.
If any of the stations in the Austin market were to share video, it makes the most sense for KXAN and KTBC to be partners. Austin TV viewers/news consumers/news users are very fickle; they sample other stations a lot. But, research indicates that KTBC and KXAN share relatively few viewers. So, it is less likely that a viewer of KTBC’s 9 p.m. news will say, “I’ve seen that before” if they were to watch KXAN at 10 p.m. KXAN and KVUE share many viewers, however. Depending on the details, this arrangement, while economically doable, could be damaging to viewers.
It is unclear whether different reporters will also attend the news conferences and, therefore, present a different angle on a story. Also, the stations may choose totally different sound bites.
Critics might call it a homogenizing of news content. That’s a danger. Conspiracy theorists always maintain that the news is all the same dictated by some sinister force—the TV stations, the network, and even the government are all in cahoots. This could be fodder that fuels those flames. But on the day with The Rocky Mountain News announced that tomorrow (Friday, February, 2009) will be the final edition, it says a lot about the economy.
This is the first such partnership with competing stations in the Austin market, but it is not uncommon elsewhere. For instance in the Phoenix market, three stations are sharing one helicopter. "This was done as a response to this economy and for financial reasons," John Misner, president and general manager of 12 News told the Arizona Republic.
This Austin pool coverage agreement is happening at the same time that the only mass-production local newspaper is up for sale. Experienced reporters at the Austin American-Statesman are being offered buy-outs. As a journalist, it’s a scary, sullen time.
In kindergarten they taught us to share. It was a good thing. It was something we were supposed to do all of our lives, in fact. Nowadays, in TV news, it’s becoming a way of doing business. One could put it into the same pigeon-hole called “Doing More with Less”. Or, one might more rightly say, given these economic times as media stocks become penny stocks, it is a smart way of doing business.
Still, there is a danger to local democracy. If all the local media are reporting from the same stuff (“Stuff” is used intentionally.), I believe that the consumer/user/viewer of broadcast journalism may be losing something of great value. Personally, I’d seldom use content from a news conference, considering it “canned”. Instead, I’d pull the sources aside and ask questions others weren’t asking.
As noted above, the details of this apparent agreement are still being worked out. I do have faith in some of the “Big J” journalists in this market who will ensure that the important work of information to the audience is being done. Some, however, may be lazy. Some stations may simply take the rote sound bites of the day to fill the news hole. Geez, I hope not.
There are many philosophical, thorny issues inside of this issue. This could be a field day for politicians and publicists. I hope to explore these with the local news directors and news editors soon.
© Jim McNabb, 2009
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Make Them Stop!!!
One-Source Stories
I’ve been chewing on this one for a few weeks, or it has been chewing on me. I wondered how I should approach this. Should I call or email a news director and simply tell what I saw? Should I let it slide? Or, should I post it here and let the chips fall. Obviously, I decided to post it here. Will there be chips?
I don’t know if it is a facet of “doing more with less” [Please see an earlier post.], or the lack of sources and resources during the holidays, or worse—laziness, but I’m seeing a disturbing trend: One-source “packaged” news stories on the air.
In the television news industry, a “package” is a story with a reporter’s voice track , often with a “stand up” or “bridge” inside when the reporter appears on camera. The standup or bridge will accomplish one or more of several things. It gives the reporter presence at a scene; it allows the reporter to explain something for which there is no video; or as a bridge it can create transition. But a package—any story for that matter—should be balanced and fair. Right? A story using only one source is thin on content at best.
The only packages that might work with one source would be “spot” news (especially live shots), profiles, or features. Certainly, when reporters roll up on a raging fire just before a newscast, one quick interview covering the basics of the breaking news may be all that is available before going live. Even features and profiles are often better with more than one source. Most other stories always need balance. Even saying, “We attempted to reach Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah, but were unsuccessful” can help.
What set me off were two stories that I saw recently on the same station, minutes apart. They were one-source stories. They were one-sided. They left questions in my mind. A reporter never wants to leave questions about their stories in the minds of the viewers. A viewer, in fact, may lock onto that story and miss the rest of the newscast if they are musing over the one-source story and not paying attention.
One of the stories that kindled my consternation contained opinions from Jim Harrington, Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. You can be sure that almost any story using Mr. Harrington as a source probably has some controversy attached to it. Yet, the story was the gospel according to Mr. Harrington; no other sides were presented. The reporter even seemed to buy into Mr. Harrington’s point of view, judging from her delivery. I was disturbed. The other one-source, one-sided story was much lighter, but it screamed for balance. The reporter could have said something in the tag at the very least. Nope.
Responsibility here doesn’t rest only with the reporter. With the exception of live, breaking news, all scripts should be cleared by the show producer. More often than not, an executive producer and/or the news director will also read the story before it is edited and aired. For print, editors do the same things before approving a story for publication. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Let me emphasize: Yes, I’m focusing on these two stories because they aired almost back-to-back on the same station. It, however, seems to be a trend, and other newsrooms also seem satisfied with such so-called journalism. That’s what alarms me. It should alarm all viewers/users/consumers of local news too. Red flags should go up. Whistles and sirens should sound. None of us should be satisfied with one-source stories and let the media skate. We deserve better, and we should demand it. This is not rocket science. This is basic journalism with a “Big J.”
Media is constantly castigated for being biased in its reporting. I’d be curious if anyone has complained about one-source stories. It may not be bias, but it certainly leaves that impression. We all know that facts may not matter, impressions do matter, especially if those impressions re-enforce a reader/listener/viewer/user/consumer’s pre-existing notion of the truth.
Readers/listeners/viewers/consumers/users have agency. I encourage, I urge all to use it. One way stations learn of an audience’s feelings is when enough audience members pick up the remote and change channels or cancel subscriptions. However, without research, a medium may be at a loss to know why their ratings are down. As a believer in traditional, local news media, I don’t advocate this kind of feedback.
All media now claim to want feedback, and they make it possible through their web sites. If a medium gets enough credible negative (or positive) reaction to specific stories, there is a real potential for positive change and growth. Sometimes, it only takes only one thought-provoking, detailed email.
© Jim McNabb
2009
I’ve been chewing on this one for a few weeks, or it has been chewing on me. I wondered how I should approach this. Should I call or email a news director and simply tell what I saw? Should I let it slide? Or, should I post it here and let the chips fall. Obviously, I decided to post it here. Will there be chips?
I don’t know if it is a facet of “doing more with less” [Please see an earlier post.], or the lack of sources and resources during the holidays, or worse—laziness, but I’m seeing a disturbing trend: One-source “packaged” news stories on the air.
In the television news industry, a “package” is a story with a reporter’s voice track , often with a “stand up” or “bridge” inside when the reporter appears on camera. The standup or bridge will accomplish one or more of several things. It gives the reporter presence at a scene; it allows the reporter to explain something for which there is no video; or as a bridge it can create transition. But a package—any story for that matter—should be balanced and fair. Right? A story using only one source is thin on content at best.
The only packages that might work with one source would be “spot” news (especially live shots), profiles, or features. Certainly, when reporters roll up on a raging fire just before a newscast, one quick interview covering the basics of the breaking news may be all that is available before going live. Even features and profiles are often better with more than one source. Most other stories always need balance. Even saying, “We attempted to reach Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah, but were unsuccessful” can help.
What set me off were two stories that I saw recently on the same station, minutes apart. They were one-source stories. They were one-sided. They left questions in my mind. A reporter never wants to leave questions about their stories in the minds of the viewers. A viewer, in fact, may lock onto that story and miss the rest of the newscast if they are musing over the one-source story and not paying attention.
One of the stories that kindled my consternation contained opinions from Jim Harrington, Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. You can be sure that almost any story using Mr. Harrington as a source probably has some controversy attached to it. Yet, the story was the gospel according to Mr. Harrington; no other sides were presented. The reporter even seemed to buy into Mr. Harrington’s point of view, judging from her delivery. I was disturbed. The other one-source, one-sided story was much lighter, but it screamed for balance. The reporter could have said something in the tag at the very least. Nope.
Responsibility here doesn’t rest only with the reporter. With the exception of live, breaking news, all scripts should be cleared by the show producer. More often than not, an executive producer and/or the news director will also read the story before it is edited and aired. For print, editors do the same things before approving a story for publication. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Let me emphasize: Yes, I’m focusing on these two stories because they aired almost back-to-back on the same station. It, however, seems to be a trend, and other newsrooms also seem satisfied with such so-called journalism. That’s what alarms me. It should alarm all viewers/users/consumers of local news too. Red flags should go up. Whistles and sirens should sound. None of us should be satisfied with one-source stories and let the media skate. We deserve better, and we should demand it. This is not rocket science. This is basic journalism with a “Big J.”
Media is constantly castigated for being biased in its reporting. I’d be curious if anyone has complained about one-source stories. It may not be bias, but it certainly leaves that impression. We all know that facts may not matter, impressions do matter, especially if those impressions re-enforce a reader/listener/viewer/user/consumer’s pre-existing notion of the truth.
Readers/listeners/viewers/consumers/users have agency. I encourage, I urge all to use it. One way stations learn of an audience’s feelings is when enough audience members pick up the remote and change channels or cancel subscriptions. However, without research, a medium may be at a loss to know why their ratings are down. As a believer in traditional, local news media, I don’t advocate this kind of feedback.
All media now claim to want feedback, and they make it possible through their web sites. If a medium gets enough credible negative (or positive) reaction to specific stories, there is a real potential for positive change and growth. Sometimes, it only takes only one thought-provoking, detailed email.
© Jim McNabb
2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
