Grape,
Just read your guide for college grads.
You're kidding about not needing a journalism degree, right? Some people in our newsroom said this is ridiculous, that you can't get anywhere without one. And who starts in a top ten market with no experience? Got any proof?
Yeah, I hear this all the time. "No one will hire me. I don't have a journalism degree."
Hmmm... let me think of someone in the business who doesn't have a journalism degree. Hang on, give me a minute. Oh, wait, let me just get a mirror.
That's right, you guys take advice from someone who didn't major in journalism. My college didn't even offer broadcasting courses.
Ever hear of Peter Jennings? High school dropout.
Barbara Walters? English degree.
Geraldo Rivera? No experience, no journalism background, started in New York City.
Need someone more recent without a degree or experience? How about Megyn Kelly?
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=918762
There are two things you need to know about this business. First, a degree doesn't make you smart or qualified. One of the sorriest reporters I ever saw had a degree from a "prestigious" university. The smartest weatherman I ever worked with never spent a day in college.
Second, we tell stories for a living. Do you really need four years of intensive instruction on how to tell a story? Or could you pick up the basics in a few months at a TV station?
I've heard this from dozens of interns. "I learned more here this summer than I did in four years at school." Granted, there are some great J-schools out there. Places like Missouri, UT Austin and Arizona State consistently turn out sharp kids. But a degree in journalism isn't required.
Remember, there are no rules in this business. If Megyn Kelly can walk into a DC station with no experience, no training, and get a job, why can't you? Some young lady started in Houston a couple of years ago right out of college. Why can't you? All you need in this business is common sense, street smarts, the ability to write and communicate, and a decent personality.
Oh, and enough guts to stop listening to "experts" and enough confidence to go right to the top.
Send your tapes anywhere, even if you don't have the "right" degree, and maybe I'll be talking about you next year.
Since there are no rules, you're not breaking any by trying.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
The lineup
It's opening day! Finally, baseball is back and I get to shake my head at the Mets annual attempt at fielding a decent lineup. But don't get me started.
A News Director is a lot like a baseball manager in that he or she has to put together a lineup that will win. Sometimes you find a combination that works, and sometimes not. Many times you end up playing people out of position, or putting people in the starting lineup who don't pan out.
Your position in the lineup, or on the bench, has everything to do with one person's opinion and little to do with being fair. Why did that other person get the weekend anchor gig when you're clearly more experienced? Why does one reporter get assigned all the good stories while you end up with the chicken salad packages?
It's all a factor of the lineup.
(The one man band thing, by the way, is like taking a relief pitcher and asking him to bat cleanup. Sorry, couldn't resist taking a shot at the bean counters in the middle of the metaphor.)
Many times there are other factors in the lineup. For instance, the Mets sent some promising people back to the minor leagues who were clearly better players than the ones they kept. The reason? They're paying other people too much money to play in the minors. Makes no sense to me, as you should want your best team on the field.
But sometimes a station is paying an anchor too much money to sit on the bench, and the result is you don't get a chance you probably deserve.
News departments, like baseball teams, need utility players; those guys who you can plug into any position knowing they'll do a solid job. And News Directors also love their clutch hitters; people you can call in the middle of the night who won't complain and hit the ground running for the big story.
So if you feel like you're sitting on the bench or playing in the minors, your best hope is to be that utility guy or clutch hitter. Make yourself more valuable to a News Director, and the day will come when you're in the starting lineup.
A News Director is a lot like a baseball manager in that he or she has to put together a lineup that will win. Sometimes you find a combination that works, and sometimes not. Many times you end up playing people out of position, or putting people in the starting lineup who don't pan out.
Your position in the lineup, or on the bench, has everything to do with one person's opinion and little to do with being fair. Why did that other person get the weekend anchor gig when you're clearly more experienced? Why does one reporter get assigned all the good stories while you end up with the chicken salad packages?
It's all a factor of the lineup.
(The one man band thing, by the way, is like taking a relief pitcher and asking him to bat cleanup. Sorry, couldn't resist taking a shot at the bean counters in the middle of the metaphor.)
Many times there are other factors in the lineup. For instance, the Mets sent some promising people back to the minor leagues who were clearly better players than the ones they kept. The reason? They're paying other people too much money to play in the minors. Makes no sense to me, as you should want your best team on the field.
But sometimes a station is paying an anchor too much money to sit on the bench, and the result is you don't get a chance you probably deserve.
News departments, like baseball teams, need utility players; those guys who you can plug into any position knowing they'll do a solid job. And News Directors also love their clutch hitters; people you can call in the middle of the night who won't complain and hit the ground running for the big story.
So if you feel like you're sitting on the bench or playing in the minors, your best hope is to be that utility guy or clutch hitter. Make yourself more valuable to a News Director, and the day will come when you're in the starting lineup.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The chocolate war
Lent officially ends at sundown, at least for Catholics, and when the sun dips below the horizon I will have accomplished something I've never been able to do.
Giving up chocolate for Lent.
I've tried this before and failed miserably, since I'm a chocoholic. As a kid the nuns impressed the importance of making a sacrifice for Lent. My suggestions of giving up things like beets or broccoli just got a roll of the eyes from the good Sister, who stressed that we had to give up something we liked. The problem was that forty days without something you like sounds like an awfully long time.
Sort of like a two year contract. (You were waiting for the metaphor, right? "How is he gonna tie in chocolate rabbits to broadcasting?")
How do you get through something that seems like forever? One day at a time.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. If you look at the elephant and think it would be impossible to eat the whole thing, you have to break it down.
Instant gratification is the mantra of the young generation. You guys want things fast and furious, and start drumming your fingers if things down download quick enough. You also tend to get desperate if your career doesn't rocket up the ladder as you had planned.
One day at a time is a good way to approach a lot of things. In broadcasting, we often learn one thing at a time. We figure out how to use nat sound, master that, and then work on something else, like live shots. But we tend to get discouraged if we don't master things immediately.
Experience can't be rushed, and mastery of a process takes time. If you said to yourself, "Today I'm going to do a package that has perfect nat sound," and you'd never used nat sound before, you'd be disappointed in the results. But if you gave yourself a month to get better at it, you wouldn't have a problem. Along the way you'd learn to fade, cross-fade, write to your nat sound, etc. By the end of the month you'd have enough experience that it would become second nature to you, and you'd have mastered it.
Don't expect to turn out network quality work on your first day. Just work on getting a little better each day. All those improvements eventually add up to the point where you're doing quality work on autopilot.
Meanwhile, no post tomorrow, as it is Good Friday. Besides, I'll be in a sugar coma.
Giving up chocolate for Lent.
I've tried this before and failed miserably, since I'm a chocoholic. As a kid the nuns impressed the importance of making a sacrifice for Lent. My suggestions of giving up things like beets or broccoli just got a roll of the eyes from the good Sister, who stressed that we had to give up something we liked. The problem was that forty days without something you like sounds like an awfully long time.
Sort of like a two year contract. (You were waiting for the metaphor, right? "How is he gonna tie in chocolate rabbits to broadcasting?")
How do you get through something that seems like forever? One day at a time.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. If you look at the elephant and think it would be impossible to eat the whole thing, you have to break it down.
Instant gratification is the mantra of the young generation. You guys want things fast and furious, and start drumming your fingers if things down download quick enough. You also tend to get desperate if your career doesn't rocket up the ladder as you had planned.
One day at a time is a good way to approach a lot of things. In broadcasting, we often learn one thing at a time. We figure out how to use nat sound, master that, and then work on something else, like live shots. But we tend to get discouraged if we don't master things immediately.
Experience can't be rushed, and mastery of a process takes time. If you said to yourself, "Today I'm going to do a package that has perfect nat sound," and you'd never used nat sound before, you'd be disappointed in the results. But if you gave yourself a month to get better at it, you wouldn't have a problem. Along the way you'd learn to fade, cross-fade, write to your nat sound, etc. By the end of the month you'd have enough experience that it would become second nature to you, and you'd have mastered it.
Don't expect to turn out network quality work on your first day. Just work on getting a little better each day. All those improvements eventually add up to the point where you're doing quality work on autopilot.
Meanwhile, no post tomorrow, as it is Good Friday. Besides, I'll be in a sugar coma.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Covering anger in America: Don't add fuel to the fire
Several years ago a reporter showed up at a shooting just a few minutes before air, then did a live shot without knowing all the facts. The reporter played up a racial incident, which later turned out to be nothing more than a cop shooting back at a guy who was shooting at him.
And.... cue the riot.
Many reporters put their own assumptions ahead of the truth in their haste to be first, or just controversial. The results can be disastrous. When you jump to conclusions without doing the legwork, the story becomes an opinion.
Several years ago I met a producer of a major network show who had covered the Iran hostage crisis. I mentioned that every time we saw the Iranian people, they were shaking their fists in defiance.
"Do they do that all day?" I asked, tongue in cheek.
"Only when we point the camera at them," said the producer.
Hmmmm. Are people only "angry" when the little red light goes on?
Right now the anger in America appears to be at the level we saw in the 1960's. But unlike the 60's, we're seeing more opinion injected into coverage.
When we see a brick thrown through a Democrat's office window, the culprit has to be a Republican.
When we see a gunshot in the wall of a Republican's office, the culprit has to be a Democrat.
Case closed. Tell the police investigators to go home, since the media has already solved the crime.
Several factors are in play here. First, there are always whack jobs and disturbed people out there. What they do is not always political. What political party did Ted Bundy belong do? Was David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) a Democrat or Republican? If these guys were committing crimes today, media people would be looking for political undertones. Surely, anger at the government triggered their killing sprees.
Second, getting fifteen minutes of fame has never been more alluring. Look no further than the White House party crashers. People love being on television. Next time you're covering a crowd that might turn angry, note how they act when you're just walking around and how they change when you shoulder the camera. The general public has learned that playing to the camera can land you on the evening news.
But the bottom line is that too many media people are jumping to too many conclusions. When you have no proof, no facts, no witnesses, and nothing on tape, you're basically broadcasting a story that is pure opinion.
And that just makes people even more angry.
And.... cue the riot.
Many reporters put their own assumptions ahead of the truth in their haste to be first, or just controversial. The results can be disastrous. When you jump to conclusions without doing the legwork, the story becomes an opinion.
Several years ago I met a producer of a major network show who had covered the Iran hostage crisis. I mentioned that every time we saw the Iranian people, they were shaking their fists in defiance.
"Do they do that all day?" I asked, tongue in cheek.
"Only when we point the camera at them," said the producer.
Hmmmm. Are people only "angry" when the little red light goes on?
Right now the anger in America appears to be at the level we saw in the 1960's. But unlike the 60's, we're seeing more opinion injected into coverage.
When we see a brick thrown through a Democrat's office window, the culprit has to be a Republican.
When we see a gunshot in the wall of a Republican's office, the culprit has to be a Democrat.
Case closed. Tell the police investigators to go home, since the media has already solved the crime.
Several factors are in play here. First, there are always whack jobs and disturbed people out there. What they do is not always political. What political party did Ted Bundy belong do? Was David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) a Democrat or Republican? If these guys were committing crimes today, media people would be looking for political undertones. Surely, anger at the government triggered their killing sprees.
Second, getting fifteen minutes of fame has never been more alluring. Look no further than the White House party crashers. People love being on television. Next time you're covering a crowd that might turn angry, note how they act when you're just walking around and how they change when you shoulder the camera. The general public has learned that playing to the camera can land you on the evening news.
But the bottom line is that too many media people are jumping to too many conclusions. When you have no proof, no facts, no witnesses, and nothing on tape, you're basically broadcasting a story that is pure opinion.
And that just makes people even more angry.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Want ratings? Follow the money
Quick... what are the three stories Americans care most about right now? Don't think, just answer.
Your answers probably included health care, the economy, jobs, the war, or politics.
Anyone out there say "car wrecks" or "crime?" Anybody?
So why are you loading up your newscast covering stuff Americans don't care about?
That recent health care vote on a Sunday garnered tremendous ratings for the news outlets that covered it. You would think a discussion about things like pre-existing conditions and physician reimbursements would drive viewers away in droves. But it was just the opposite.
Because the discussion wasn't really about health, it was about money. And viewers care more about that than just about anything else. That is also the reason for the phrase "people vote their pocketbook on election day."
Stories about the economy and jobs are all about money. Stories about politics are about how much Congress is spending your money. The war? It's not only about terrorism, but about how much it costs to fight it.
Several years ago I joined a station that put on a white collar newscast. We never covered car wrecks, domestic disputes, or crimes featuring shirtless criminals robbing convenience stores that seem to fill every newscast these days. A manager told me, "Our viewers don't care about that stuff." He also told me that we were tied for first in the ratings, but our viewers were worth more to advertisers, so we could actually charge more for commercials than the other station. The other station had numbers, but those numbers were comprised of people advertisers didn't want.
Local news ratings have been going downhill for several years, and part of the problem has been the fragmenting of the audience. But the big part is the fact that the scanner has become a crutch for News Directors, and viewers have tuned out the parade of death and destruction. But if you put on a newscast filled with stories that actually affect the viewer, you can reverse the trend.
When you're looking for an enterprise story, always consider the money factor. You'll probably have better results pitching it and your viewers will be more interested.
And keep this in mind... if you honestly don't care about a story, why should the viewer?
Your answers probably included health care, the economy, jobs, the war, or politics.
Anyone out there say "car wrecks" or "crime?" Anybody?
So why are you loading up your newscast covering stuff Americans don't care about?
That recent health care vote on a Sunday garnered tremendous ratings for the news outlets that covered it. You would think a discussion about things like pre-existing conditions and physician reimbursements would drive viewers away in droves. But it was just the opposite.
Because the discussion wasn't really about health, it was about money. And viewers care more about that than just about anything else. That is also the reason for the phrase "people vote their pocketbook on election day."
Stories about the economy and jobs are all about money. Stories about politics are about how much Congress is spending your money. The war? It's not only about terrorism, but about how much it costs to fight it.
Several years ago I joined a station that put on a white collar newscast. We never covered car wrecks, domestic disputes, or crimes featuring shirtless criminals robbing convenience stores that seem to fill every newscast these days. A manager told me, "Our viewers don't care about that stuff." He also told me that we were tied for first in the ratings, but our viewers were worth more to advertisers, so we could actually charge more for commercials than the other station. The other station had numbers, but those numbers were comprised of people advertisers didn't want.
Local news ratings have been going downhill for several years, and part of the problem has been the fragmenting of the audience. But the big part is the fact that the scanner has become a crutch for News Directors, and viewers have tuned out the parade of death and destruction. But if you put on a newscast filled with stories that actually affect the viewer, you can reverse the trend.
When you're looking for an enterprise story, always consider the money factor. You'll probably have better results pitching it and your viewers will be more interested.
And keep this in mind... if you honestly don't care about a story, why should the viewer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)