Journalism Idol

The traditional media industry is up in arms over the internet.  When fast internet first started zipping around the country, the traditional print media like the New York Times shot itself in the foot by posting its content online for free; this is nothing new - I've written about it in earlier blog posts.  A newspaper can't operate without paying its reporters, and online, subscription-free newspapers with little ad-supported revenue is a disaster waiting to happen.  

I want more people to have access to free online content just as much as the next American, but my family (I don't have one of my own yet, but when I do) comes first and if I can't feed them because I work for the Times and they barely pay me - that's a problem.

This is the dooms day scenario the traditional print media has dealt with, but the broadcast business has dealt with its own demons - citizen journalists.  

A big threat to the traditional broadcast boys and cable is citizen journalism.  Citizen journalists witness interesting things happen in their hometown, shoot some amateur shaky video of the event and post it online. The initial response from traditional broadcasters was to play nice with these citizen journalists by having them submit their content to the traditional broadcaster.  Not a bad idea - CNN gets free content from a citizen journalist, and the citizen journalist gets to tell grandma that his footage was on CNN.  A win-win!  Jon Stuart made fun of the lengths CNN would go to make citizen journalists feel welcome, a part of the CNN team.  

So, what's the problem if CNN is capitalizing on these amateur journalists? Nothing at all.  The concern is that these citizen journalists won't be treated by CNN as amateur videographers for long.  After all, what happens when these citizen journalists start to organize?  There's nothing threatening to traditional broadcasters when a couple techy people edit some sequences together on iMovie; however, CNN has a problem if these techy people form a techy coalition, through their techy blogs, websites and social networks to form a citizen journalism network, an outlet that can compete with the traditional media.  All of a sudden, a couple harmless videographers evolve into a huge threat for the traditional broadcasters like CNN.

Same old story: one guy sitting in his truck in a parking lot is a lonely man who can do you no harm; but, take ten grown men and put them in the back of a pickup and you have a gang.  Two weeks ago, these citizen journalists were as threatening as that one lonely man. But just this week Youtube gave these citizen journalists gang status.  

Youtube launched the Reporters' Center, which trains citizen journalists on how to shoot, edit and write stories.  It even has tips on how to market and distribute the citizen journalism content.  Youtube is acting like a Journalism school, posting five-minute videos of Katie Couric and Bob Woodward offering interviewing and reporting tips.  What's the point of the journalism degree if Katie can tell me how to report in five minutes?  

CNN, traditional broadcasters, and J-students like myself who spent a fortune on the prestigious journalism degree may be initially scared and angry at Youtube for giving amateur journalists a training ground and a distribution platform.  

However, I believe this to be the wrong approach to Youtube's invention.  

As traditional journalists, let's embrace Youtube and view it as an American Idol for journalists - Journalism Idol maybe?  Being a citizen journalist on Youtube isn't the traditional path into the broadcast business; but American Idol isn't the traditional path into the music business, and few people find American Idol threatening to the traditional music model.  

So, let's view Youtube's experiment, its Reporters Center, as a positive invention, as a breeding ground to discovering the undiscovered reporting talent, instead of a threat to the traditional news business.  I like American Idol, so I've decided to like Youtube's Reporters' Center.  

Only I Get the Two-Legged Tripod

I'm not saying that I own a two-legged tripod, and I'm not saying it's bad if you do own a two-legged tripod; this blog's title - lame as it is - is simply my way of expressing that I have some bad luck with my tripod at times - only I get the two-legged tripod.

Just this week, I considered breaking my tripod's legs when I got to my interview and found that I brought with me a broken tripod.  The tripod had three legs this time, but the security latch on the tripod - the only clip that holds the camera in a rock steady position - was broken!  Little glitches are huge problems in this biz. 

This is a worse-case scenario when it comes to interviews.  Especially because I was interviewing the Chief Fire Battalion for Columbia, and he told me as soon as I walked in the door and shook his hand that he was busy and might have to stop the interview if he gets a phone call.  

The Chief stepped away when I was setting up the tripod and realized it was broken. I was so embarrassed to find I couldn't hook the camera to the tripod.  I told the Chief my tripod predicament, and immediately reassured him it would take me five minutes to drive back to the news station and get a functioning tripod.  

I was sure he'd just call off the interview and my entire story would collapse because of one faulty tripod - not at all; he forcefully grabbed the tripod from me, told me to hold down one of the buttons and then slide/lock the camera into position.  It worked! 

It turns out my story was on the Mid-Missouri Bomb Squad and my interviewee was one of the squad's three members, so it's not surprising he could de-arm my tripod like he de-arms a bomb.  But, I'm not taking his help for granted.   I thanked the Chief and made some quip - "well, sir, that's why you're on the bomb squad and I'm just a reporter - you can fix stuff" - to joke off an embarrassing moment for me.

Maybe embarrassed is the wrong word; I was humbled by the whole situation.  I learned not to act like a "know-it-all," because even us - I take that back - especially us, the media, have something to learn from the people we interview.  Even if it's how to fix a tripod.  Without that quick fix, I wouldn't have had a story that day.

The rest of my reporting shift went very well: I added another voice in the story I didn't think would speak with me, I returned to the station with plenty of time to write the three VO-SOTS, package and web story the producers wanted, and I turned over a cute story about the Bomb Squad's high-tech, remote-controlled robot.  

Now, if only my tripod was as high-tech as that bomb squad's robot.  Ah, who would want that - then my reporting shift wouldn't have been nearly as exciting.

A Solemn News Week

When celebrities and public figures pass away, it's difficult to hear, but this week is especially challenging for me.  In one week, public figures I grew up with, names that my families talked and gossiped about, are no longer here.  Ed McMahon, Farra Faucet, Michael Jackson.  I know these peoples' voices, I've danced to their music and I've watched their shows.  That is why I'm focusing in this entry on how various media cover death, and how we as media consumers digest the death.

Last summer I was interning in the FOX News Channel newsroom when Tim Russert passed away.  I witnessed how difficult it is verifying that a celebrity passed away.  I remember the wires chirping louder than ever as the news streamed in.  We got the news one hour before our show, and we understood that if it was true, if Tim Russert did suddenly pass away, this story was our entire show.  In one hour, I called every number online, scrambling to find someone in the media business who would speak about Tim Russert as a person and newsman.  It's difficult with such sort notice to create a program that does justice to such well-known and great public figures, but we did our best for the situation.  

It's difficult to watch these sudden, unexpected deaths of middle-aged people and hear voices on television, television pundits, talking about the celebrity's life, when they didn't even know the person as a person.  Immediately after the announcement that Michael Jackson died, CNN had political pundits talking about the famous entertainer - they knew him no better than I did.  Wolf Blitzer asked the one pundit if she met him. I expected her to say she knew him in some more intimate capacity, but she basically said she saw him as a girl after one of his concerts. 

 It's unfortunate that in the 24 hour news cycle, the reporters are left with average commentary to commemorate great lives.

I remember when Tim Russert passed away, we had one of our pundits, who usually talks about the court system, talk about his life.  She remembered seeing him at a dinner party, and said he was such a nice man at the party - hardly a good story to commemorate a great man's life.

What's the solution to this problem of having an average pundit speak about the life of a great entertainer?  It's sloppy journalism in my opinion.  If we want to recall their lives, let's wait and put together specials and proper stories with research, and family members; let's use the television to communicate the heartfelt messages that it can communicate.  

But, I get it - when someone dies in a 24 hour news cycle, the cycle has to be filled; just understand, television producers, you aren't covering "someone" dieing, you are chronicling the life of a person who on a large-scale changed something while they were here. 

A Powerful Text Message

My report at KOMU this Friday was a different experience.  I didn't report on a new bridge or the next summer fair; I did a story that was serious and required all my thought, energy and humanity.  I'll give you a synopsis. A pastor from a small town in mid-Missouri called Moberly was accused by a sixteen-year-old girl of kidnapping and molestation.  The girl reported that the pastor kidnapped her from a gas station in Moberly and drove her to a motel in Columbia, where he molested her.  

This Tuesday, the Boone County Court ruled that Pastor James is not guilty of the molestation charge.  Now, a different county court is working on the kidnapping charge, and has not reached a verdict just yet.  Nevertheless, the pastor's family is ecstatic that their dad and husband was cleared of the molestation charges.  Caleb Wilson is the Pastor's nineteen-year-old son.  He called KOMU because he wants mid-Missouri to know that his father is innocent.

I was the reporter assigned to the story.  I drove to the Free Will Baptist Church in Moberly to hear what Caleb had to say about his dad's innocence.  However, Caleb did put some restrictions on what I was allowed to shoot.  Caleb said the church, which was basically a small home which also functioned as a religious school, was too messy so he didn't want me to film him inside.  I was perfectly fine with that request, so I interviewed Caleb outside.

Caleb told me how thrilled he was that his dad was found innocent, but I had no other interviews besides this and little video because I was restricted from filming in the church or even Caleb's house.  I decided to focus on collecting good interviews instead.  I convinced Caleb to give me his grandma's phone number. He did, and she gave me a sincere account of her nervousness on the day of the trial.

But, I didn't realize the importance of the story until it was all over.  While I was working on the story, I was too focused on thinking what video I needed, what questions needed to be asked, where the church was in Moberly, and whether the police officers would ever call me back, to even think about the significance of this story for the Wilson family and this small religious community in Moberly.

When I walked off the set after reporting the story at the top of the 6 p.m. newscast, I had a text message on my phone.  I assumed it was one of my roommates telling me I said the wrong word or looked cross-eyed into the camera - the usual jokes they tease me about - but it wasn't them.  Caleb Wilson texted me.  I was surprised.  The text was simple - he thanked me for covering the story.  At that point I realized what this story did for Caleb's family.  For months, Mid-Missouri wasn't sure if Caleb's dad, Pastor Wilson, was guilty or innocent of these charges.  The courts decided this week that he is innocent, and Caleb, as the oldest son in his family, wanted to make sure his family's name was cleared of these dirty allegations.  

Just by broadcasting this one short story, Caleb's family can move on from these terrible couple of months and rebuild their family and their father's reputation.  

I wonder if Caleb didn't text message me thanking me for helping his family, would I have ever realized the story's significance? I don't know, but I'm happy I get free texting.

Don't Go "All Newsroom" On Me Brian

As I start this blog entry, another blog that I track, TVNewser, announces that CBS anchorman and legendary broadcaster, Walter Cronkite, is seriously ill.  Cronkite is now ninety-two years old.  TVNewser cites CBS sources as the source releasing this information, including the tidbitt that CBS started drafting Cronkite's obituary last week.  So let's take a look at now at today's network news, always bearing in mind the vocal "footprint" Cronkite left on the broadcast news industry.  

Last night, I was attempting to do a couple crunches and sit-ups on my bedroom floor while watching NBC Nightly News.  I had to stop crunching once I saw what Brian Williams was doing on air.  Williams was not at his desk; instead, Williams anchored the entire newscast from the NBC newsroom, which I believe is the same newsroom for the cable operation - MSNBC.  Here it is: Newsroom. set reminded me a lot of MSNBC's Morning Joe show.  And not only was the entire show produced in the newsroom, but it was broadcast with limited commercial interruption.  

Kudos to the Nightly News team for experimenting with different ways of telling the news story.  Just this week in my journalism lab we talked about the different approaches producers take to telling a news story.  For example, instead of just telling the story in a straight Voice Over form or a straight package, producers sometimes put reporters onset so they can interact with the anchors.  This style often means the story is told in a question and answer format, which gives the broadcast some variety.  

But, did the Nightly News crew experiment blow up in their face or was it a commendable effort?  I would definitely say it was commendable.  I always wondered if the anchorman behind the desk approach would ever change.  Tom Brokaw tried the stand-up style for a couple years, but once Brian Williams took the reigns, the anchor chair returned for a time.  Until last night.  Once again, terrific idea - I liked watching foreign correspondent Richard Engel leaning on the news desk telling what he knows is going on in Iran.  This more casual approach to the reporter-anchor Q&A segment was more believable than when the anchor has the desk separating him from the reporter - the studio norm.  However, it didn't all go smoothly.  Before Williams chatted with Engel, Williams had to physically walk to Engel, who was awkwardly - kind of mysteriously - hovering in the background.  Williams practically had to turn his back to the camera, and walk to Engel in order to ask the question.  And just like peoples' body parts, we probably don't want Brian Williams' backside on camera.  

I picked up on a few other production mishaps, such as cameras and lights popping up in shots, but it didn't traumatize me.  I enjoyed the risk NBC took, but I don't think they should burn their studio set and shoot every newscast from the newsroom.   That would be nutso!  Let's just use the newsroom shooting for stories that have an international insurgency to them; stories that feed a consistent news stream into the newsroom.  Stories like the communication and revolutionary changes happening in Iran.  It was a perfect first story for Brian to share from his newsroom.  

Even though I like this casual story telling format, I understand that not everybody does.  NBC is not the first to broadcast from the newsroom.  FOX News started airing their noon show, LIVE Desk, from their newsroom.  I interned at FOX when they started this, and I was a big fan of the idea.  But not everyone was.  One of my fellow interns complained that it was too chaotic for her too watch.  The anchors and reporters scurrying around the newsroom, interviewing officials and writers in the newsroom, distracted her too much from the story itself.  I completely understood her point.  So, let's use the newsroom sometimes, but don't kill it.  Like a VO, let's use it as an alternative way to tell a story when the story fits that format.

Hiring Reporter - Bad Drivers Need Not Apply

This week I confirmed for myself that I prefer reporting over producing.  I'm not saying that one is better than the other because both are needed to make good t.v. news, but my personality is more geared toward that of a reporter.  I like when my environment changes, which reporters experience every day.  Sometimes, when I'm driving to a story, I think how unique it is to be a reporter.  For a couple hours everyday, my car becomes my office.  I make phone calls and talk to public information officers while I'm driving.  In fact, the other day I did have some important factual questions I wanted the Boone County Public Works PIO to clear up for me, so I pulled over in a subdivision in order to jot down some notes.  Just like that, my car became my office.  

Is there a chance I like reporting because I get to drive around all day? I sure hope not.  I like reporting for more reasons than just that, but the driving definitely makes the job fun.  I can't understand how producers are able to walk into the station knowing that they won't leave the station again until they're going home for the night.  And when you're putting in twelve hour days - that's a dreadfully long time to sit in one chair, at one computer.  It's tiring just thinking about it.  As a reporter, I get to do what I love - drive around town, radio on, thinking about my story, the video I want to shoot, the next interview I'm doing, and thinking how I'm going to make the mess of soundbites and facts gel into a coherent story.  It's such a relaxing way to spend the day.

Besides the driving itself, I enjoy seeing a new part of town everyday.  I shot, wrote and edited a VO the other day in a little town called McBaine.  In order to get to the town, I simply followed a road that I take everyday to school, but I simply continued until that big road became a back country road.  If I never traveled down this road that distance, I would have never known that this little town, McBaine, even exists; I wouldn't know that McBaine has a cafe called Lucy's that the locals visit, and I wouldn't have seen the expansive flood plain with a windy country road twisting through it.  If I wasn't a reporter, forced to leave the bubble I commute in everyday, I wouldn't know how Mid-Missouri really feels.

I also enjoy meeting and interviewing the people that make this small town run. I like talking to the school teachers, school board members, construction workers, PIOs, Public Works Directors and all the people that keep Columbia's engine humming.  I feel privileged to see how a town runs behind the scenes.  The other day, I interviewed the Interim Director for Boone County's Public Works department.  When I was interviewing him on a new bridge in town, he also let me know about the new GPS system the department is installing in every Public Works truck - pretty cool insider information if you ask me.

If I was a producer, I wouldn't have all these experiences.  I wouldn't be payed to drive my car around town, or talk to community leaders, or tour my town.  Reporting is for me because for eleven hours every day, I can focus on one story and learn about one thing.  Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by the information overload that I get when I flip open my laptop and read the news.  No information overload when the tables are turned and I'm the reporter.  When I'm the reporter, all these other news stories are out of my mind, allowing me to focus on my story, my one story, and the task of making it the most comprehensive and comprehendible story it can be.

Starbucks Gets the Cable Guys All Wired Up

The larger than life personalities of cable news are constantly at each other's throats.  For years, FOX's Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann duked it out on the screen with Olbermann naming O'Reilly the "Most Hated Person" and Olbermann topping O'Reilly's "Pinhead" list every now and again.  But, the growth of cable news means more cable hosts are jumping in to the fray.  The new battle - MSBNC's Joe Scarborough versus Comedy Central's Jon Stuart.  I understand "The Daily Show" is not a news show, but it does provide commentary on the news business and is as much involved in the news industry as the other cable guys.  And in many circles, the Daily Show is more respected than the "real" news shows the other cable guys are producing.  That's why it was disheartening this week to watch Jon Stuart and Joe Scarborough - a comedian and a news anchor - go at it.

The scuffle started when Joe Scarborough's morning show on MSNBC cut a deal with Starbucks.  The deal: Joe, his co-anchor and guests sip on Starbucks coffee and lattes during the morning show and Starbucks cuts Scarborough's show a check, a big one.   At first, allegations swirled that that check would be made for 10 million, but the show quickly renounced that claim as not in the ballpark.  Essentially, this deal was seen by Jon Stuart as product placement in cable news, which is a whole other story, but I'll return to that later.

  Stuart poked fun at Scarborough for the Starbucks deal after Scarborough totally downplayed the product placement and the check his show would receive.  For Stuart, the simple fact remained - an ethical line is crossed when news endorses one specific product.  Scarborough reacted to Stuart's claims saying Stuart is just an angry man.  Scarborough says he likes many talk show people he doesn't always agree with politically, citing the women on The View, but he finds Stuart to just be angry.  Let's see if Stuart fires back.

Now, what about those million dollar Starbucks coffees that will sit on Joe Scarborough's anchor desk from now on.  Did Jon Stuart overreact?  Is coffee product placement really crossing an ethical boundary.  After all - it's just coffee.  Anchors have been sipping coffee on set for years.  I believe product placement is a problem, but not for Joe Scarborough's morning show on MSNBC.  Well, what makes Scarborough's show different from the others you may be asking?  First of all, the show is called "Morning Joe," so it's only appropriate that a big coffee sits on his desk.  But most of all - I watch "Morning Joe" quite a lot and yes they deliver news and have newsmakers on as guest-anchors, but it feels more like a talk-show to me than a morning news show.  It's more The View and less the Today Show.  And, obviously, a talk show doesn't have the journalistic standards of fairness that news shows must uphold.

But, if Scarborough's Starbucks coffee ever finds its way to Brian Williams' Nightly News desk, I'll have something fierce to blog about.

Jon Stuart has a point - product placement crosses an ethical line.  Scarborough will now think twice about reporting on problems within the Starbucks company, but Stuart doesn't see "Morning Joe" for the show that it really is.  It is more talk than news.  After all, Scarborough was a Republican Congressman from Florida before he broke into television, so the political bias other news reporters avoid is clear as day on "Morning Joe."But that's why people tune in - to see a moderate-Republican anchor on a network with left-leaning tendencies. This political bias is a brand just like that Starbucks cup. 

So Stuart, you have a point, but it doesn't apply to Scarborough's talk show, because it is just that - a talk show.  If you really are concerned about product placement, go over to the Today show and see what Willard Scott is doing with the people turning 100 years old.  Is he still pushing that Smuckers jelly?  Now, there's product placement on a morning news show!

When Your Video Converter Hates You

This week was my first opportunity to ditch the lab equipment, with its funny camera light and unreliable tripod, for the sleek camera gear at KOMU.  But better equipment meant I had to be a better photojournalist.  Last night I couldn't rely on an automatic zoom to de-fuzz my shots; I had to use my own shooting judgement and make sure I capture the best video.  This was all more work but the feeling of accomplishment was well worth it when I got back to the station and saw my personally focused, zoomed and angled shots in the editing equipment.  I have to admit, not all the shots were what I expected them to be, but these couple of weeks are my time to make mistakes.  

  I arrived at the station a little before 6 p.m. to prepare a VO (stands for "voice-over" if you're now confused, not "vile-odor") for the 10 p.m. show.  My producer handed me an email.  I am to report on an open forum hosted by a local, non-profit organization called "COLORS".  COLORS stands for Columbia Locally Owned Retail and Services. Here's their site:http://www.colorsalliance.org/ Basically, they are a non-profit that promotes "buying local" instead of the big-box stores.  But the forum didn't have anything to do with Columbia's small businesses.  The forum was the public's only opportunity to ask questions of the eight candidates running for the Columbia Public School Board.  The applications went out last week for candidates to apply, and the vote was to take place within the week - today, in fact.  COLORS noticed that the vote was happening quickly and the contenders had barely any time to voice their positions, so COLORS decided to launch this forum.  There was a good turnout with six out of the eight potential board members showing up, but I still had the problem of getting interesting video out of an average public debate that was unlikely to get juicy.

I was happy with the bite I got from a COLOR volunteer. I asked why a non-profit like COLOR, which usually deals with small business, is interested in Columbia's public education.  The volunteer, Sean Spence, said that Columbia's small businesses want an educated workforce and educated consumers.  Good bite! I was set in the interview department.  I tried getting a current school board member on camera, but he declined.  Plus, my producer gave me strict instructions not to interview any school board member.  You know the deal with politics - you interview one and you have to do them all! Not possible with eight people running.

My video was not as easy as my bite.  The forum was in an awkward, boxed room with the typical dais, host podium, and eight rows partially filled with an emotionless audience.  I got video of the brochure with "COLORS" written on the front so I could reference who hosted the forum.  Other than that, I made sure to shoot medium shots of the candidates so viewers could clearly see the faces, and the usual close-ups of people writing, hands wringing etc.

The shoot and interview went well, but KOMU got a little hectic.  I completely underestimated the time it takes to import the video from the chip into the editing equipment.  That oversight cost me some valuable time.  Instead of editing and piecing together beautiful sequences, I was stuck with a written script and unedited raw video processing like a melting glacier in the video converter box.  And I'm talking about a glacier before Global Warming - the slow melting kind that once capped our planet.

But in the end, the VO was written and the sequence was edited, and never again will I import that much video.  But hey - I finally got to use the cool KOMU camera.

Feeding the Elephant Media

Let's have a little chat about NBC's special "Inside the Obama White House."  Two days before the special, MSNBC was pumping promotional videos for it and the day the special aired, host Brian Williams made early rounds on the morning talk shows to get the word out one last time.  Williams couldn't emphasize enough the amount of man-hours, and television equipment required to produce an in-depth look into the new President's White House.  It took about thirty cameras to film the special, which I can believe because every fifteen minutes during the special, Williams interviewed President Obama in a different room of the White House.  That's a lot of microphones and cables.  

This special was quite a challenge but I felt NBC kept it light and interesting with some good television moments- Obama's media frenzy visiting the burger joint - to keep the special primetime, family friendly and not too serious.  The first night of the special, Williams looked less into the President's personal adjustment in the White House, instead focusing on the new administration.  Some fiery personalities like Rahm Emanual made for some good behind-the-scenes television, but the media cast this Chief of Staff as a ball of fire since his appointment, so that's nothing new.  I especially liked the brief scene showing Secretary of State Clinton receiving a semi-awkward hand-slap from a general as he walked in the room for a meeting.  These fleeting moments are what make"behind-the-media-image" television so interesting, but it also makes me realize how incredibly normal these politicians are.  Hillary Clinton being somewhat casual - not my impression of her.

But more significant than revealing these "average-guy" moments during this special, Williams made me realize how much the media and politics are intertwined.  I was shocked to see one of NBC's Chief Political Correspondents, Chuck Todd, chatting it up with some press secretaries inside the White House.  My vision of the daily operations of the White House Press Corps. was not like that. The young press secretary was lecturing Chuck Todd on the intricacies of some measure, but Todd's face seemed to not buy into the spin.  I realized good reporting and substantive information is made available in these backroom conversations; the official press room meeting is not the only time when the media questions the President.  I thought Press Secretary Gibbons spoke to the Press Corps every day, the Press Corps hounded Gibbons with questions and then the press flocked back to their stations and offices to write their stories.  That's not the case - the media and the White House are constantly dialoguing and monitoring each other.  I loved watching the video of President Obama watching his press secretary on his personal presidential television, which played four cable news channels simultaneously - television must be a powerful thing.  Most interesting of all, when Brian Williams asked the President if he ever stops and listens to the nightly cable news chatter, Obama said no.  So, the President's White House staff spends tons of time monitoring the media, making sure the story is told the way they want it told, but President Obama doesn't listen to the cable chatter. Interesting.  It's like organizing a circus - setting up the tent, printing the admission tickets, hiring the fire-eating man, and feeding the elephant - but not watching the opening night.

The Story is in the Sound

I love taking afternoon naps.  Napping is always one of the items on my "describe your best day" list.  The sluggish feeling always hits me around 2 p.m. and there's nothing I want more than to lie down on my couch, flip a cable news channel on mute (a strange habit, but the television screen is like art on my wall - I glance at at every time I walk by), throw my green blanket over me, and rest.  I just need twenty minutes and I'm good to go again.  But this week, I never felt the post-lunch drowsiness.  Weird, but I know the reason.  I'm pumped about what I'm doing, excited for the rest of the summer and the opportunity to shoot, edit, and narrate really good television stories.  My afternoon lethargy is replaced with thoughts about preparing myself for reporting. I'm focused on something fun and it's an adrenaline rush.

I'm getting to the point now where I'm developing my personal methods of researching, shooting, editing and narrating a story.  I'm constantly tweaking my methods to see which is best, but I'm excited that new ideas are at least flowing.  This week, when I sat down in the edit chair to start piecing together my story, I realized there were several directions I could take the story, several news angles.  I punched my story into iNews, constantly looking at the video and the sounds to confirm that I had video that matched my words.  Once the story was written I started laying the video.  One problem - I did not like the direction the story was taking.  

You probably want to know what the story is.  It's about a couple in Jefferson City, MO who decided to collect clothes to distribute to shelters and individuals who need the clothes.  The news angle is that this couple started collecting these clothes in their garage one month ago, and now their two-car garage is loaded with 4,000 pieces of clothing!  The service is called Right Off Your Back.

   In the first script I wrote I failed to emphasize that the news hook was the amount of clothing the couple received from their community.  I decided to change my entire script to make sure my news angle was clear.  It was frustrating tweaking the script, but while making the corrections, I realized a little trick I'm going to start using from now on - look at video and natural sound first.  This made a huge difference. 

  The bites are usually not a problem because I know which bites I'll use when I leave the interview, but the NAT sounds and video are a different story - I just don't know what NATS are clear and what video is solid until I see and hear them back in the broadcast lab.  So, from this point forward, I'm going through my NAT sounds and my b-roll first thing, as soon as I get back to the lab. I've found that if I use the NATS and video to tell the story, my writing can just connect the dots.  Emphasizing sound and video is nothing new in broadcast, but I have really taken it to heart, because it makes the writing process much easier.  Before I started using this method, I would find myself staring at the blank iNews screen wondering what direction my story should take.  What a waste of time! The story is right in front of me, hidden in the video and the sound that I shot.  I realized that the video and the sound is my most trusted writing guide, leading me to my story's focus.  Video and sound is also a quick way of trimming the story - if I don't have the video and sound, I'm not going to use that piece of information.  This is a great technique for molding a complex story with several news angles into a coherent television story with a 1:15 airtime.  This method is not revolutionary, but it has altered the way I begin writing my stories.

Thought Flickers on the News Biz

Before bed my brain fires random thoughts in my mind just to keep me from falling asleep. I call these random thoughts, "thought flickers."  Sometimes they're very insightful, but mostly they're mundane. Recently, they've been about the stumbling news business. It seems all media is struggling, but newspapers are getting the biggest headlines (as ironic as that may seem) because that industry is falling so much faster than the others.  But why are things so dire?  More of the world has access to news through the internet than ever before.  So, if more eyeballs are reading the New York Times, why is there talk that the newspaper industry deserves an auto-industry-sized, government bailout?  Why is it that newspapers charged readers for their printed paper while failing to monetize the exact same stories online?  I truly believe that the industry leaders did not foresee the internet's growth and its potential.

This news biz will change in the next few years.  And today might be the day that set the change in motion wrote reporter James Warren. Warren, Former Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief and Managing Editor, wrote a story on Huffington Post with the headline, "Shhhh. Newspaper Publishers Are Quietly Holding a Very, Very Important Conclave Today.  Will You Soon be Paying for Online Content."  

Warren says this "conclave" may be the start of an industry revamping its money-making model.

Warren doesn't think that charging subscriptions for online papers is the only answer.  Warren writes, "ultimately, many in attendance will start charging for some online content because they don't know what else to do."  

News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch says subscriptions are the answer.  Interviewed on his own cable network, FOX Business, Murdoch said, "The Web as it is today will be vastly improved, they'll be much in them and you'll pay for them."  

"Them" referencing the papers he owns.

As a younger journalist, I'm not fearful of where the industry is headed.  I envision an online, hybrid news model, where readers pay a subscription for special services, but are also allowed free access to some general news.  I also imagine advertisers eventually paying the money for online ads that they once paid for print.  Some editors say that newspapers shot themselves in the foot when they failed to monetize news online.  These same industry leaders say that now, still less than a decade from when online news readership skyrocketed, it is simply too late to charge for online news - the public will never pay for what was once free.  

I just can't believe that to be true.  The public needs news to live their lives, know what's safe to eat, what roads are closed and whose running for city council. People will always need news, so let's slap a fee on it - and a little bit of advertising too!

I forgot to mention in my lead that those "thought flickers" I have about the media are positive.  Once the internet generation takes the reigns, we'll bring the creativity and innovation back to the media industry.   In the next twenty years, a news model will emerge -one that the nineteenth-century print boys couldn't even imagine in their wildest "thought flickers."

Planning the Spontaneous Story

After years of sitting in classrooms studying Julius Caesar, Monet's art, and the heart ventricles, I can barely remember the details of what I learned. How disappointing.  My parents should have used that tuition money for a couple more trips to Vegas.  KIDDING!  In my old age - twenty-one years and eight months - I might not remember who designed St. Paul's in London (Wren), but I have learned the importance of planning ahead.  I believe that the golden secret to doing well in school is one word - planning.  In High School I would constantly tweak my calendar, fine-tuning how many days I needed to prepare for an exam.  I was proud of this skill - usually the first item I mentioned on "What's your best quality?" icebreakers.  However, since I've become a journalist, I've learned that planning can only get you so far.  

Yes, I still plan before interviews, scribbling what questions I want answered, narrowing my story's focus and visualizing my sequences.  But the more reports I file, the more I've embraced the spontaneous moment, the moment a reporter can not plan.  This past Monday was Memorial Day and I was covering a ceremony honoring veterans.  When I first got to the event, I shot video and interviewed the volunteers prepping for the event.  The sky looked moments away from raining, so I shot fast.  As I was shooting and listening to the volunteers I overheard the event organizer talking about the live-band cancelling because of the rain.  What's a salute to veterans ceremony without any music to do the saluting?  Just like that, while doing my typical eavesdropping on strangers, my story's focus changed. As a journalist I had to adapt to this change, this spontaneous moment, even though this twist changed my original focus and my pre-planned video sequences.  As hard as it was, I had to abandon the planned video in order to shoot in the moment.  I reacted to the spontaneous situation unfolding around me.  But, in the back of my mind, in split-seconds, I was still planning the next shot, the next question, the new angle.  All this while still being in the moment - just another day at work.

Let's Chat

Well, I never thought I'd be here but I've arrived.  I've finally tossed aside my hesitation and decided to join the Blogosphere.  In setting up this blog - picking a title, deciding on a URL - it's as if I've landed on another planet.  While I'm thinking about it, let's make a fun name for this new blogging world I've tapped into.  How about planet Blogosphere?  Dorky name - yes.  But the name does capture my feelings about blogging - it's foreign to me. But not anymore!

Television is the news outlet I'm most comfortable working in.  Television news is what I study every day and it's in television where I plan to build my career.  However, I'm watching where journalism is heading and I've bought in to the predictions that the internet can't be ignored.  The news stories on television, with their simple but evocative words, emotional close-ups and memory-triggering sounds, tell beautiful stories.  But television can only go so far; television doesn't allow me, the journalist, to know how you, the news audience, feel about stories.  That's what this blog intends to do.  I hope this webpage I've created, my little home on the internet, opens my news reports to a wider audience willing to engage in substantive conversations.  So Blogosphere, let the conversation begin - I hear you're a chatty group.