Presentation: it's not just for restaurants anymore

A package is called a package for a reason. It's not just what's inside that counts, but how you wrap it, tie a bow on it, add a colorful tag and present it to the viewer like a gift he can't wait to open.

Problem is, many of you have never been taught how to properly put together a story; you don't know what really needs to go into a good package. Many college instructors have never worked a day in the business; the result is a lot of rookies who are putting stories together based on theory rather than real world experience. Sure, your package has all the basics, but you're not done.

Think of it as eating an elaborate meal in a nice restaurant. The people in that industry call it "presentation"... those little things that make a basic meal special. You can go to a cheap restaurant, order a steak and baked potato, and that's what you'll get. A steak slapped on a plate with a baked potato wrapped in foil on the side. Nothing else.

The restaurants known for presentation do it differently. They might deliver your meal while the steak is still sizzling on the plate. It might have a garnish of parsley, or a few scallions off to the side. Maybe a dollop of horseradish. The potato has been sliced open, "fluffed out", and loaded with butter, sour cream, bacon bits, and shredded cheese. There might be a few tiny carrots on the plate to give it a bit of color. Maybe there will be a basket of steaming hot bread as well. The meal looks like a high-def television commercial that makes you hungry.

And that's what so many packages lack these days: presentation and color.

Here are some of the most common elements of "colorless" packages:

-Single source sound bites: We've discussed this before, but this means interviewing one person, and one person only, and then chopping the interview up into several bites. A ND looks at this and thinks, "So, six billion people in the world and this reporter only talked to one of them." Remember that "two sides to every story" thing you (hopefully) learned about in college? Well, if you only talk to one person, you're... wait for it... only getting only one side of the story!

-The b-roll repeat: Nothing annoys me more than seeing a package with lots of video possibilities and seeing the same b-roll more than once. If you have limited b-roll, at least get wide, medium and tight shots so you can mix things up. If you run out of b-roll because it is very limited (a perp walk, defendant walking out of courtroom) then use that wonderful non-linear function called slow motion. Or throw in a graphic.

-The lame close: The reporter who can't think of anything to wrap up a story often just throws together a basic sig-out that falls right out of a sound bite. Would it kill you to write one sentence and tie the package together before saying your name and location?

-The official-could-not-be-reached-for-comment line: Can't find the other side of the story? Don't tell me, show me. I want to see you dialing the phone, knocking on the door, asking the secretary if you can get an interview.

-The missing graphic: A story with too many numbers and no graphic doesn't make sense to the viewer. Graphics are one of those great elements a ND looks for to make confusing stories understandable.

-No standup: Unless you're covering a funeral, every package needs a standup.

-The dreaded meeting video: Yep, we've all been stuck covering meetings, and if your package has nothing but meeting video, you were too lazy to get the agenda before the meeting, find out the topic, and get 90 percent of your story shot before the meeting. For example, if there's a meeting to determine the location of a sewage plant, go to the neighborhood, show the location, and, what a concept, talk to the people who live there. Meeting video should be kept to a minimum.

-The dreaded official sound bite: Apparently no real people live in some neighborhoods, as some reporters only talk to officials. Again, McFly, that's one side of the story.

-Earthquake video: As a News Director you might think the United States is plagued by constant earthquakes in all fifty states. You have a tripod for a reason. Use it.

-Mood lighting: You wanna have dinner by candlelight, fine. I don't need to see a news package that looks like late night on Cinemax. You have a light kit for a reason. Use it.

-Shotgun interview audio: Ah, the lovely sound of someone being interviewed in a barrel. Shotgun mikes are for natural sound, not interviews.

-No nat sound: One of the biggest mistakes. Sound can add so very much to a story. Next time you're watching the network, turn away and just listen. You'll be amazed at how much sound means to a package.

I realize that many of you are time crunched these days, but this is basic stuff. If you want to grab a News Director's attention, show that you care about the basics, but take the time to make presentation a key element in your stories.

Open conventions: a primer on the process

There's been lots of discussion about "brokered" or "open" conventions regarding the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. It's been a long time since the country saw one of these, and few are familiar with the political process as to what happens if no candidate has a majority of votes on the first ballot.

I remembered a great movie about an open convention and it would be good for you guys to watch it and learn how the process works. It's called "The Best Man" starring Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson. They're two front runners for the nomination who don't quite have enough delegates. It's a great look at those backroom deals in the smoke-filled rooms, and how the process can eventually play out.

It was released in 1964 (I can hear you kids saying, "Ewwwwww.... it's old") but it's a terrific movie. You can probably get it from Blockbuster or Netflix or buy it from Amazon if you're so inclined. By the way, there are about five movies out there with the same title... make sure you get this one or you'll end up watching a rom-com.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057883/




--

Money clouds the issue, part deux: doing your homework

(This comment came in after yesterday's post)

It's hard to tell the difference between a good station and a bad one from the outside. I can tell if the product is decent by looking at the station's website or looking up youtube videos, but even that isn't a sure thing. As an outsider & newbie to the business, I find it hard to know whether I'm picking the right stations to apply to as far as management, location, quality of co-workers...Any advice? Also, maybe you can tell us about those war zones you mentioned? Not the name of the stations, but just the cities.

Well, first of all, I'm not going to list those places I consider to be the ninth circle of hell in writing. But you can find out a lot about both a city and a station by putting on your reporter's hat and doing some legwork.

As you mentioned, visiting the station's website is the best place to start. You can see the product, find out if they're scanner chasers or prefer enterprise stories. But you need a lot more info before sending tapes.

Location: What's the quality of life in a certain city? Use the internet to find out, and don't go by those "best places to live" lists, as half those include factors as things to do for senior citizens, number of doctors, etc. Stuff that you're not really concerned about in your twenties. Check out things like the crime rate, weather conditions. If the city scores high in things like murder rates, car thefts, etc. it might not be a great place to live, and you might be covering nothing but crime. (Often car insurance is highest in places that have a high crime rate.) You should also visit homefair.com to check out the cost of living. What seems like a good salary can disappear if it's an expensive place to live.

Companies: There are a few companies out there that are in the top echelon and others that throw nickles around like manhole covers. The bad companies are notorious for treating people badly. Simply ask some veterans in the business. Everyone who has been in the business awhile knows the best and the worst.

Management & newsroom staff: You can often find out where a manager has worked by visiting RickGevers.com, click on the "weekly newsletter" and do a search. This site posts management jobs, and news about News Directors moving on. You can call the ND's old station and find out what people thought of the person. (Photogs are probably the most honest when it comes to this.) You might also beware of a manager who is working his way down the ladder, and who has made a lot of moves in a short period of time. Google the person as well; News Directors are often quoted for articles on things like news coverage, philosophy, etc.

You can also check those "moving on" listings on tvjobs.com, find reporters and anchors who used to work at a station, and call those people. Trust me, they won't mind being honest about a place at which they no longer work.

These days, doing your homework on a market and a station is just as important as sending out the tapes. Take your time to do a lot of research; it can save you a major headache down the road.

--

Money can cloud the issue: what you can learn from Peyton Manning

First, we'll stipulate that Peyton Manning could work for a dollar. He really doesn't need to make any more money, so he is basically looking for what he considers the most important issues in choosing a new team. Call it the football version of "quality of life." If he wanted to take the offer worth the most money, he would simply get that nutty owner of the Redskins to open the vault.

His thought process is interesting. New York? The sports media there makes the White House press corps look like a bunch of softball reporters. Plus there's the dysfunctional locker room. Washington? Never wins and it's in the same division as his brother. Seattle? Never on TV. Denver? Probably too cold and snowy.

Which brings us to the news business. (Yes, it's another sports analogy.) You want to make it to "the show" and put on blinders until you get there. You look only at market size and money. When, in reality, you should be following Peyton Manning's strategy, considering quality of life.

I'm always amazed when new clients send me lists of markets in which they'd like to work. They've never been to any of these cities, but assume that because they are high on the list they must be good. Since I've traveled extensively in my life, I tell them there are places that are war zones, there are big markets where the product is laughable, there are companies that raise dysfunction to an art form. And there are cities that are horrible places to live and work.

As mentioned before, comfortable is the new black. When targeting new places to work, consider everything. While none of us share the same financial position as Manning, keep in mind that money cannot trump a bad situation, a bad location, or bad management.

-

Mailbag: Dating game

Grape,

This has nothing to do with journalism but I wanted to get your opinion. I've gotten very close with someone in the newsroom and would like to ask her out on a date. But I'm worried this could cause a problem in the newsroom if it doesn't work out. Thoughts on dating in the workplace?

Well, there's the old "don't fish off the company pier" advice that is always good. While it is inevitable that a business filled with young, attractive people would result in some attraction, you have to look down the road. It is nearly impossible for couples to move in this business. Finding one job is hard enough, but finding two gigs in the same place is next to impossible.

While there are married couples sprinkled throughout the business, they're usually stuck in one place for the duration. And think about this... suppose you two hit it off, fall in love... and then one gets a great job offer. What do you do?


Grapevine,

Our station changed ownership and I'm worried about my job. However, our main anchor who has been here forever seems to think he's bulletproof. Is anyone really secure in this business, even if they have incredible talent?

Ask Peyton Manning.


Hi Grape,

Just curious on your take regarding the political coverage of the Presidential race this year. Are we getting less biased out there?

Well, I hope you are, but as a whole not much has changed. The one thing that seems to stick out this year is the way reporters and anchors portray Republicans and Democrats, as if every Republican is a right-wing whack job and every Democrat is a flaming liberal. Most people are pretty middle of the road, but the extreme members of each party are good copy, they scream the loudest, so they get the air time.

There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans out there. But you never see them because they get shouted down by the extremists. And we're the ones putting those people on television.

-