What does referencing video really mean?

If I had a dollar for every shot of generic video in a story, I would be rich, on the beach living the high life! It’s so common, it’s almost become accepted in the industry. And that’s a big mistake because generic video does nothing to help viewers trust that you know what you are talking about. It’s true. They can tell that you just slapped up some pictures hoping they would not really look. And nowadays, it’s just another reason to shake their head, grumble about fake news and look at social media instead.  Recently, CBS Evening News ran a correspondent story about air traffic controllers in New York who overheard a possibly terror threat on their frequencies. During the story about the New York-based controllers, there was a shot from inside an ATC tower looking out at what appeared to be Las Vegas, complete with its larger than life hotels and even mountains in the distance. This is the kind of thing that at worst confuses viewers and makes them question credibility and at best makes them wonder if a given news organization is “really that lazy.”

So how do you reference video, especially when you have no choice but to use generic shots? First, let’s define generic video. Generic video are images that are peripherally, but not always specifically, related to a story. Sometimes, generic video sticks out and seems to make little or no sense with the story. It’s video for video’s sake. And it’s a major danger zone.  That is especially true if you ask editors to “Just pad out the shots” to make sure the video doesn’t run out, or “just find me pics of people eating at a restaurant.” “Just show me avocados.” “I need video of a beach.” I have seen stations have advertising pulled over showing restaurant pics, that the chain viewed as identifiable during a food recall story. Same with images of produce. Is there a from Chile, or from Mexico sticker? These kinds of details have the potential to be hugely important. Even something as innocuous as pictures of a beach can create a fact error. Beaches in Hawaii do not  look the same as the ones in Florida or Maine and viewers DO notice. In other words, there is no such thing as generic video. Every image has a fact in it. Remember that.

So, let’s add this to the definition of generic video: It is images you are not mentioning in any way while the story is being read aloud. This is an important distinction because it gets to the core of this article: referencing video. You need to have the copy and video make sense together. Now, I did not say “match.” It’s just not realistic to pre-record every story that airs and sometimes the video is slightly ahead or behind the copy as it’s read. That’s not great, but better if the video is actually referenced in the telling of the story. 

A recent example I saw was a story of a man who worked at a religious day care center who was accused of molesting children there. The story showed the mug shot of the man, the sign of the place where he worked, a building (I assume is the same place??) and shots of an infant swing. Not great images to work with, right?  But with subtle writing references you can make it work, and not be generic and therefore confusing. Here’s how that can be done: “(mug shot) Name was arrested today, on child molestation charges. He worked at (show sign and say name of) daycare. (images of building and swing) You might recognize this building on and playground on (           ) street in (city). Police did not say what ages the children were in this case, but infants up to age 8 attend this daycare. (on camera) (name) faces 5 counts tonight. We will let you know what happens next in this case.”

I once had a news director require that we shot sheet every story in every newscast. The first couple of weeks I seriously thought my newscast would not make air. It took forever! But eventually I got the routine down and could still write quickly. With desktop editing so prevalent now, there is really little excuse to not write to video. This does not mean you have to shot sheet and reference every single image. I get that. But you can make sure that you at least reference the first shot seen, and if you add any file video, mention that it is past video, from whatever the source and/or time.

Also, as you are starting to teach yourself to write to video use these references:

 “As you see here”

 “you can see”

 “this is (_____)”

“here’s a good look at (_____)”

“take a look at (_____).”

These references can get cliche after a while, so you do not want to use them all the time everyday every story. But use them for a couple of weeks as you retrain your brain to think of images as you write your stories. They really help. As you get the hang of it, it’s easy to drop these catch phrases. 

Referencing video does not always mean that you have to overtly say what’s on the screen. Sometimes it’s just making sure that what the copy says plays off of the images. So referencing video is, truly, not as hard as it seems. Hopefully this article makes it easier for you, so you can start to reference more images in your stories. You want your newscasts and stories to stand out. You are writing for the ear, but also for the eye. Never forget that. Video needs to be part of the context of the story not a distractor.

Image by Josep Monter Martinez from Pixabay.

Share

Is Breaking News Cliche?

I recently posted a question on Twitter, “ Should ‘breaking news’ go on the cliche list at this point?” The amount of views on that post was tremendous. So let’s delve in a bit more shall we?

I get asked how and when to use the term breaking news a lot. For good reason. The term “breaking news” has taken on a wild and crazy life of its own in TV news. Its been a long ride. And just like some rides at Disney, it is time for an upgrade.

Breaking news is overused. There I said it. Especially by cable news outlets and some local broadcasting groups. The thinking is if you state immediacy viewers cannot help but watch. Problem is, when you really think about it, most breaking news on TV is dated, compared to digital news. The very fact that newscasts are on at set times, ruins the appeal of using “breaking news” in most stories. (Even cable outlets have set viewers for set time slots.) In fact, viewers know you are likely just exaggerating. Just look at studies about credibility and TV news.  

 Digital is changing things for sure, and it begins with the use of the term breaking news as a crutch to try and get viewers to stick around and consider newscasts relevant because its “breaking” information.

Especially when you look at the definition of cliche:  A phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought. (Dictionary of Oxford Languages) This one by Merriam-Webster makes the point more clear: a trite phrase or expression.  In other words, used so much that it has become boring, and perhaps lost its original meaning.

Viewers who tend to like news, tend to also look at digital resources. Yes this can even include some Boomers.  Especially with more newspapers offering less expensive digital formats than getting the paper thrown into the driveway each morning. So these viewers, are seeing through the gimmick that “breaking news” has turned into. Its become boring, unoriginal and frankly, not worth tuning in for. 

If everything is breaking then nothing truly breaks. Memorize that mantra. 

So let’s give “breaking news” that makeover it so deserves. First, a made for TV definition: Breaking news is news that started happening during your newscast, and new elements are continuing to present themselves. You are sharing information that has not made air before in other newscasts. This is information you are gathering, right at that moment. 

So if a newsworthy event happened two hours before your show, then ended before your show is it breaking? NO. It was breaking for digital two hours ago if you have a kick butt team in that section of your newsroom. But for TV, no. Instead think: latest developments. The story is new since the last newscast, and the goal is to continue to expand on key facts while you are on the air. You are filling in the viewer. It is new, but not breaking.

Is Covid breaking news? There are constant new elements presenting themselves all day each day if you really think about it. I am going to argue, proceed with caution. Breaking news, feels like a gimmick to casual viewers. (The regulars likely tune out the labeling period, still no benefit to you.) So happening right now, or latest update or developing can work in this scenario. Or you could avoid all of these “news branding” phrases and just say what is going on. Viewers still assume you are at least trying to bring them “new” information in a newscast. They give you some points for that effort still. Why not use that to your advantage and save time and energy just telling them the facts without a label at all? In terms of Covid so much is happening, it feels like a tidal wave. The viewers need something to cling on to, perspective. New information isn’t always enough to satisfy audience needs.

Breaking news can have a place in the newscast, but to me it should at least be a strong contender for the cliche list. Avoid. Focus instead on just consistently updating stories, so everything is new. Viewers expect that and frankly many take it for granted. Labeling things new and breaking constantly can shine light on the fact that the rest of your content is likely old. Especially in the digital age. By focusing less on the label, and more on the information itself you will gain more trust with the viewer. 

Share

Let’s get personal. Why your social media connections could cost you your job.

Over the last several months especially, FTVLive.com has called out a lot of journalists for inflammatory remarks made on their social media including their personal Facebook posts.

At times these Facebook or Instagram pages are “locked down” meaning someone has to ask to be your friend to get access. Apparently that is leading some journalists, including very seasoned ones, to think they can post anything because its only going to be seen by family and friends. But here’s the issue, friends can fall out of favor, or have another friend who doesn’t like you. All it takes is a friend with access to your page to screen grab your post and send it to another person, and you are as good as public. Don’t believe me? Again ask some of the journalists recently called out about their postings on FTVLive.

The hard reality here is these posts can also be sought after by bosses, HR and coworkers ticked you got the shift they wanted, the position they hoped for etc. I have seen it, and had to help journalists deal with this reality several times now. You have to realize, all it takes is one person to take a screen grab and share it. 

I have also seen people go through the rest of the staff’s posts when they get in trouble themselves and try and out the others for doing the same thing. Next thing you know a bunch of staffers are getting written up. And it can be more than a slap on the wrist, the post and disciplinary action can end up in your employee file impacting your ability to get a job in company in the future. Also HR will protect who “outed” your comment. So you will constantly look around the newsroom and wonder who turned you in. Who has it out for you?

I have heard of hiring managers contacting former employees at stations you apply for, to see if they can get access to your personal Facebook etc. Not to mention HR and managers having burner accounts, that seem innocent but are actually used to get access. 

This is meant to make you stop and think hard about social media. Privacy just does not exist. You cannot count on private mode, when it comes to protecting your career. There is always a way to gain access if a person wants to, and there can be people you think are your friends that will stab you in the back. 

With this reality in mind, let’s talk about the never post list you need to memorize.

Political Views

Compromising selfies

Sexual comments, innuendo

Religious opinion

These are your danger zone topics.  Can you post a bible verse for inspiration on your personal account, probably, but be careful. You can also say you just got back from service. Other than that, keep any opinions to yourself. You are a journalist, you are very vulnerable and under scrutiny.

Politics is just a no. Sorry the world is too polarizing. Pass. Talk with your friends and family. Otherwise. No.

What are compromising selfies? The specifics vary depending on CoVid. Right now if you go to a social gathering, do not post a picture. If you are out drinking do not post a picture. If you are flying somewhere probably should not post a selfie from the plane, airport etc. Non CoVid times, do you look drunk don’t post. (As in you do not want any pics taken when you are drinking that could end up on social media) Would you wear that outfit in front of a religious leader or your parents? If no, then no selfie online. Sorry, America still can have very puritan like values. 

I know that there is a push to feel good in your own skin. And you should. If you work out and love your toned body, that is not a bad thing. But you have to be careful about mistaken impressions. You might think that bikini is ok, but I promise most of the hiring managers are not thrilled. Those that are frankly are likely not thinking of you as a good journalist, but eye candy they can use to get numbers then dump when the awe wears off. Sorry but someone has to say that bluntly. Too many people are not understanding it. There are a very few  hiring managers who will not judge and will just focus on your journalistic integrity.  To assume most will is just plain over estimating their goodwill and maturity. Also, think of all the memes out there, do you think most Americans are mature too or will pick apart your “assets” and objectify you. Is the risk worth your career? If you are in journalism to be looked at, you still have to keep the job, to get that attention. Remember that too.

Now sexual comments and innuendo. Sadly, I see a lot of this when screening journalists myself. I get that social media can be a way to hook up or find the love of your life. But again, you need to think about all the stories covered when politicians sext etc. Same applies to you.

Also seriously consider whether people at work should have access to your personal accounts. A lot of people choose to keep work and home separate, including their personal social media accounts. It is a valid idea. One I would encourage while you work in the industry. Once you leave a station maybe you invite a select few of your closest friends to have access. Maybe. Again, I can promise you, when you see a personal Facebook reference on FTVLive, in most cases someone that person trusted shared that post with someone else, possibly including FTVLive directly. Having limited access, where you approve the friend list is not enough.

Finally a word on social media policies at work. All of them have some language that allows the staton to come after you for personal pages. That includes, personal Facebook with limited access, personal websites, etc. They keep the language fluid enough to be able to come after you if they so desire. Bottom line, most journalists do not have the cash flow to fight them back, and the companies know it. So they issue blanket statements about types of unacceptable posts (see list above) and they remind that everyone, even those of you behind the scenes represent the company at all times on social media. All times. If you are online, you represent the station you work for. Period. That has to be ingrained in your mind as you post. Every minute. Every day. You just need 1 person to dislike something you post to potentially seriously damage your reputation and cost you your job. So never forget your social media connections could cost you your job. 

Share

Should my opinion count? Taking a hard look at story decision making in newsrooms today.

The goal of this article is to spark conversation, much like the article “What is hard news really” did when we first published it. If you attend morning or afternoon editorial meetings chances are you know these phrases well “I am just not interested about that” , “Who cares” or “I don’t care so our viewers won’t either, after all I am the demo.”  When cut outs of the key demo figures showed up in editorial conference rooms, it made an underlying issue come to the forefront of decision making:  Doing the news I care about instead of what may need to be covered. Presumed biases.

I get what consultants were trying to do, showing off a Michelle or Jennifer cut out of a mom who loves to workout and go shopping. But designing entire brands around getting these idealized people to watch really hurt the business in a lot of ways. People are not caricatures. And to be even more blunt, journalists should never assume most of their audience thinks like them. Sometimes you have to take some time off as a journalist to really get this, but journalists brains sort information and relevance differently after awhile. In other words, you can get jaded. Or you can put too much relevance on an issue in the community with biased reasoning. Getting regular access to research can help you avoid some of this. But research nowadays is done more for the quick fix branding issue than truly digging into community needs. It shows. It hurts credibility. Even worse a lot of companies are dumping research options to “do it themselves.” Then the bias really comes in. The “well I don’t care about that story,” rejections become daily reasoning. 

This has been a problem for years. Check out our article on how to get around stories the GM wants, for example. Story selection for the good of the community will never be perfect. There will always be a need to humor the cut out Jennifer a little bit. There is always a desire to get the key demo to watch in order to get the ad revenue to allow your station to do more news. I am not going to say this issue is an easy fix. But I am going to say that more newsrooms need to put stories through a quick viability test that is more profound than the ND or EP or producer saying “ I don’t care about that story, pass.” Journalists step in and out of many communities, many micro worlds so to speak. To be great connectors, investigators and fact finders you must start with wondering why others care about something you don’t find interesting.  

Let’s take a look at the tried and true WIFM (What’s in it for me?) consultant story selection strategy that survive has written plenty about in the past, and let’s make it more inclusive for todays newsroom editorial meetings.  

The what’s in it for me question is supposed to consider impact with emotional relevance. It sparks a reaction that is immediate and needs validation. The problem is station brands took the “for me” part of the question too far. What if you ask these questions instead about each story pitch: Who benefits? Who is hurt? Why is this happening? How will groups/communities/politicians /companies relate to the event/fact/study/crime etc?

See the difference? I may not personally have an interest in a story about more dogs on the loose in a neighborhood on the other side of the DMA. I may not even like dogs. But I will care if people are being bitten and/or people are pushing for rights to go unleashed. Could this idea spread to my neighborhood?

These simple questions can apply to any kind of news. Road closures, fires, court cases, political debates, medical breakthroughs, tech stories, economic trends. The questions quickly identify the impact. More importantly they can help reduce the influence of personal biases. Asking why others care about a story can help analysis become more objective. Maybe it can even make the viewer feel like you actually do care about them,  because you take on a variety of topics instead of easy grabs that truly impact a narrow audience. Your newsroom.   Your opinion needs to be one voice. And other conflicting voices might have the better story for the day.

Share