From the category archives:

Reporting

Stories on car accidents have become a staple of television news. Their significance to most of your viewers should be a cause for concern. How has or will a viewer’s life change as a result of running this story?

How does an accident, even when people are killed, affect 99% of your audience?

The above question is not meant to diminish the pain or suffering of loved ones or close friends.

Rather, it’s directed at the impact on that portion of your audience that far outnumber those who knew the accident participants.

It’s easy to understand why car accident stories are used so frequently:

  • Good visuals
  • Require only a photog – hopefully frees a reporter to chase another story
  • Easy story to cover due to staff cutbacks and limited resources
  • News staff lacks creativity to develop other stories
  • Assignment desk too reliant on police scanner
  • Inertia

Why not ask these questions when determining how relevant these stories are?

  • Does the location experience a lot of accidents?
  • Has the driver’s age seen a rash of recent accidents?
  • Was the accident the result of unusual circumstances?
  • Did the accident disrupt traffic patterns for an unusual length of time?
  • Could the accident have been prevented?

All of the above give viewers, in addition to immediate family and close friends, valuable information. It puts the incident into perspective and allows viewers to judge its impact on their lives.

Can’t get such information right away? Delay airing the story and produce a followup piece. The story then becomes more than a simple accident item.

A story lacking this information isn’t relevant to the majority of your audience.

Why use it?

share this post:
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The recent Michael Jackson coverage proved one thing – people see what they want to see. Some saw the media coverage as overblown; others saw it as justified.

Everyone sees the world through their own unique lens. Call it their personal worldview. Yours is shaped by all the experiences you’ve had in life. No two people share the same life experiences. So, each of us has a different way of looking at things.

What’s that got to do with news reporting? Plenty.

You’ll never produce a story that all viewers see in the same light. Can’t happen.

Be prepared for critical comments regardless of how good you think your effort was. Your claims of balance and objectivity will always prove hollow to some people.

Just be certain that you’ve satisfied the only critic that really matters.

YOU.

You’ll know when you hit a home run. You’ll also know when you cut corners or took the easy way out. This internal evaluation will gain greater precision through experience. Here’s where being honest with yourself really pays off.

Better yet, be open to constructive criticism. Don’t feel threatened or take it personally. Analyze dissenting viewpoints. See if another perspective will change your worldview. Maybe broaden it or make it more inclusive.

Brings me to the final issue of bias. Critics always contend that the news media is biased. Guess what? It is.

So is the audience.

People see what they want to see. The charge of being biased will always be subject to the worldview of the person making the charge.

Here’s the dirty little secret. Your reporting is biased. The way you view the world injects your own bias into everything you do – your story selection, your shot selection, your choice of copy, your choice of people to interview, your framing of the story, etc.

Reporters like to think they’re objective, but they’re not. You’re human – you can’t produce work that is stripped of your bias.

Neither can your audience and critics view your work free from their own bias.

Until people recognize these conflicts for what they are, your efforts are always subject to criticism and charges of bias. Comes with the territory. The boos and applause are always there.

Just make sure you can look at yourself in the mirror at the end of each day. Hope you feel good about an honest day’s work.

share this post:
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

News reporters consider themselves journalists. How would TV news change if they gave equal weight to the idea of being a storyteller?

TV news journalists focus on getting facts, appropriate soundbites, and good video. They’re schooled to do so with good reason. These elements are the building blocks of reporter packages.

Reporters then combine this material in a clinical and logical fashion that upholds their journalistic standards.

One problem. The work often fails to engage and connect with viewers.

Reporters are rarely challenged to practice their profession via the mantle of storyteller. Such a shift would make connecting with viewers more likely.

That’s because people are hard wired to communicate with stories. You’ve done it throughout your life.

Think back to your childhood. Your parents read bedtime stories to you. Some of you were captivated by works such as Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

You learned to read in school using various stories. You connect with new people by telling stories about your life, or work, or product. You nurture friendships by swapping stories of good times and bad.

Everybody’s circle of friends has at least one person who stands out because he or she is a “good storyteller”.

Recognize the importance of being a storyteller as well as a journalist. The two are not mutually exclusive.

An effective package is more than a simple recitation of facts supported by good video. Storytellers take those journalistic ingredients and create the narrative and color that engages viewers.

Your city council decides to raise property taxes. The journalist reports the vote was 5-4 and the hike was needed to close the budget deficit.

The storyteller describes the mood in council chambers when the vote was decided. The storyteller lets viewers know that Joe Smith fears he’ll have to sell his house because he doesn’t have the extra money. The storyteller profiles a council member as he seeks input from constituents in the days ahead of the meeting and his reaction that night.

Storytellers make news more accessible and relevant to viewers.That’s because stories often revolve around the challenges and/or triumphs of people.

Connect with viewers. Be a journalist. Be a storyteller, too.

share this post:
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Successful reporters possess traits and skills that make them special. Persistence, great writing, and gut instinct come to mind. All important, but there’s one trait that I’ll take over all the others.

Curiosity.

Curious people make great reporters. It’s a trait that you need to discover when evaluating potential employees and reviewing your current staff.

Curious people approach life in ways that make great reporting possible:

They ask questions. “Why?” is a favorite. Who’s more curious than children? No one. Notice how often they use “Why?” Asking questions gathers information and breaks down barriers. Curious people do it as a second nature.

They possess a healthy dose of skepticism. First answers to questions aren’t gospel or the final say. They’ll approach issues from different angles until they feel satisfied. Skepticism leads to probing, a vital tool for effective reporters.

They see issues as continually evolving, never resolved. The world never stands still to a curious person since another question or explanation always surfaces. That leads to ongoing exploration and an ability to ferret out information that normally stays undercover.

They view the world with a richer perspective. Their ongoing exploration widens their worldly outlook and provides perspective lost to a more closed person. It gives them an advantage in asking key questions and making sense of hidden meanings.

They’re less fearful. Their worldly views are less rigid than others so they’re willing “to go places” that could upset their current perspective. This freedom allows questions and discoveries unleased from the need to maintain the staus quo. Non-curious people shy away from situations and information that shatter their current world view.

They go where others won’t and don’t. Discoveries and insight happen on less beaten paths, far from where the masses gather. Curious people live in that world. We need their courage and ease in dealing with it to make it safe and understood by those who avoid it.

Someone once suggested that people with these characteristics are difficult to manage. They’re not big on rules or following orders.

What’s the downside?

Passive, “do it by the book” employees don’t ruffle feathers. Neither do they take the prudent risks that any growing business needs.

Make your choice. Do you want to thrive or merely survive?

I’ll take the challenge of “reigning in” highly motivated people over the option of trying to further push and energize competent people any day.

How many of your reporters are curious? Your producers? Your newsroom? The more you have, the more you stand to succeed.

share this post:
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Soundbite Advice

by Terry Segal on June 19, 2009

in Reporting

What was the most memorable soundbite from your newscast last night? Chances are that’s a tough question to answer. Not because there were so many of them, but probably because there were none at all.

Only three specific situations justify the use of soundbites. Yet, viewers are subjected to colorless, and dare I say boring, comments from government officials, official spokespeople, neighborhood residents, and so forth, in every newscast.

Soundbites are a staple of television news reporting. They’re widely used because newspeople believe that a story isn’t complete or legitimized without providing an on-air comment from an involved subject.

Not true.

Believing so leads to a plethora of unremarkable and uneventful footage that weakens the impact of stories. Poorly executed soundbites disrupt pacing, add little to a viewer’s understanding of the story, and offer a crutch for uninspired reporting.

You don’t need soundbites to prove your station covered a story. Viewers know you were there. A reporter can accurately summarize comments and still convey the story’s import.

Reporters are a credible source of information unless they have previously damaged that trust (if so, they shouldn’t be working at your station). If they tell viewers that the police chief said “we have no suspects,” viewers will believe them. It’s not critical that a soundbite of the chief be included.

Use Soundbites in These Three Situations

Here are the three cases where soundbites work best:

1) Circumstances and/or personalities demand that viewers see and hear the comments

The most famous example of the past twenty years happened when President Clinton looked straight in the camera and said “I did not have sex with that woman.”

The setting and gravity of the person made it critical that viewers saw the comment. Paraphrasing the remarks would have robbed viewers of the drama.

When the scientist who discovers a cure for cancer announces it, viewers want to see him or her. When your mayor announces his decision to step down, show your viewers.

2) Comments are driven by the emotion of an event

Viewers want to see the soundbite of a mother expressing her joy at being reunited with her kidnapped child. Viewers want to see the soundbite of the firefighter recalling his rescue from a burning building. Your audience wants to see the tearful comments of a high school football coach recalling thirty years of service.

The above situations focus on the emotion of the moment. Such emotion can’t be captured by a reporter summarizing the comments. They need to be heard first-hand.

3) The subject displays a distinct speaking or oratory ability.

Few people “own” a microphone like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. You may run across someone close, so make sure you use their comments. But remember, such people are the exception rather than the rule.

Make it a point to evaluate your use of soundbites. You can often present the same information in a more compelling and crisper fashion.

share this post:
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Outstanding reporter packages contain five key elements. These concepts make material more relevant to viewers and inject a higher degree of storytelling into the package. The result – more dynamic and memorable reports.

A shift has occurred over the years in what defines a good reporter package. The premium placed on live reports (most of which diminish the value of “live”) has stripped the storytelling concept from most reports. Nearly all live reports feature a canned, formulaic approach with opening standup, followed by a soundbite and then reporter close. Compelling storytelling is overlooked in these efforts. However, it’s also disappeared even when a reporter has the “luxury” of crafting a story at the edit station.

Compelling reporter packages contain the following five elements. They add atmosphere and impact to a package. The report becomes informative and entertaining at the same time. In short, the report is memorable.

1.   Natural sound

Nothing is more disconcerting to a viewer than to see a person banging on a drum and not hear it. The power of television to marry pictures with sound is what separates it from other news vehicles such as radio, newspapers, and magazines. Ignore adding natural sound and you’re going into a gunfight without bullets. Yes, it’s harder to do, but it’s worth it.

2.   Reporter Humanity

Reporters often forget they’re people, too, and witnesses to events. Sometimes this fact calls for a human reaction to what is seen on tape – even for a reporter. This reaction is not a call to inject opinion or bias, but rather to show viewers the “humanity” involved in a situation. One of the best reporter packages I’ve ever seen featured a story on how thousands of bats helped a farmer grow apples without pesticides.

In one scene the reporter stood on a porch and looked upwards. It was then that she and viewers saw hundreds of bats staring back at her. She gasped ‘Oh, gosh”.

Perfectly understandable and expected by viewers. Who wouldn’t have reacted that way? Never be afraid of showing that you’re human when the situaton warrants.

3.   Reporter Involvement

You’re the tour guide of your story. Sometimes transitions are necessary and sometimes illustrations are key to viewer understanding. Help the viewer in these situations without becoming the center of attention. Let the viewer know that you own the story.

4.   Personalization

Strive to tell stories by personalizing the subject. People relate to people (and their story), not abstract concepts or offical gobbledygook. Crafting a personal story to explain events takes practice and insight, but the end results are highly rewarding. Best of all, viewers find them relevant because they have meaning.

Let’s return to the report on bats mentioned in the “Reporter Humanity” section above. The reporter could have easily prepared a package about a cave that housed 20 million bats. The sheer number of bats was staggering and could easily justify the focus of a report.

The likely result? A somewhat interesting piece, but one that would lack “take away” for viewers other than the simple curiosity factor.

Give this reporter credit for taking the extra step to personalize her topic. She showcased a nearby farmer who grew apples that were free of pesticides because the bats feasted on insects. She also explained how this farmer lived without air conditioning, content to leave his windows open, because the bats cleared the area of insects.

The reporter had done an outstanding job of personalizing her topic. The package became a personal story about a farmer who established a beneficial connection with these animals rather than an effort that focused solely on bats. The end result provided a richer, more compelling, take on the subject.

5.   Translate Statistics into Viewer Benefits

Numbers, especially big ones, are difficult for people to put into context. Tossing out figures without giving viewers a frame of reference conveys next to nothing. Your job is to give numbers meaning.

Let’s revisit the “bat story” mentioned above. Twenty million is a big number that has little context to most people. Have you ever seen, heard or felt, twenty million of anything?

So, how can viewers make any sense of the fact that a cave houses twenty million bats? What does it mean?

Remember how the reporter personalized the story. The package used a farmer and his pesticide free orchard to show the impact of the bats. The report also illustrated how the farmer used the insect eating bats to keep his home windows open and avoid the use of air conditioning.

The abstract concept of twenty million bats was translated into a lifestyle benefit for a certain farmer. Twenty million became a number that had meaning and tangible value.

Make sure your reports give “life” and value to statistics.

Not all stories lend themselves to including each of these five elements. Use the above as a checklist for developing your packages. Your job is to incorporate as many as possible. The more you use, the more dynamic and effective your report becomes.

share this post:
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller

{ Comments on this entry are closed }