Today's Lesson: Going to The Desert to Find Some Hope
Every April, I make the annual trek of nearly 2,000 miles to Las Vegas, Nevada to attend the combined National Association of Broadcaster's trade show and the Broadcast Education Association's annual conference. The 2009 session will mark the tenth year in a row that I have made the trip.
I have been going long enough now to have seen the event in the good times and the not so good times. For example, in 2002 attendance dropped in the wake of the attacks on 9/11. Then in 2008, conference mainstays Avid and Apple both dropped out as the economy weakened.
What will 2009 hold? I don't know yet. But if hotel room rates are any indication, I suspect the attendance will be somewhat lower. Already I have received emails about cuts in hotel rates during that week. This is normally a time when hotels raise rates, rather than lower them. But after a drop in attendance in 2008 to 105,000, maybe the 2009 conference might dwindle to levels lower than 2002, when attendance was even lower.
This matters to me as an educator because one of the chief things I get from attending NAB is the chance to sit next to owners of broadcast outlets and ask them about their plans in regard to hiring. This year, amid a sea of horrible news about broadcasting, I am going to NAB to find hope. And I go not just seeking short-term hope, in the shape of jobs for my graduating seniors.
No indeed. This year, I go to NAB hoping that I will regain my optimism that broadcasting will matter in the future. As the pundits argue about how bad bad is, and the owners shout about localism saving broadcasting, I go to Las Vegas hoping against hope that radio and TV are not about to be relegated "has been" status by mobile and the web.
Now that internet penetration has achieved about 75% of the U.S., it's becoming something that could possibly supplant broadcasting's somewhat higher 99% penetration. In my lifetime, this is the first real challenge to broadcasting's dominance in terms of reaching people in a mass audience.
Ok...you say the internet is good. I won't argue. I spend ever-growing amounts of time using it for nearly everything. I have even stopped delivery of my local newspaper in favor of online news. But once things calm down for the day and I want to relax, I ain't sitting in front of the computer. I fire up the tube and let the warm glow wash over me. Mmmm....television-y.
A recent Nielsen report stated that "the average time a U.S. home used a TV set during the 2007-08 television season was up to 8 hours and 18 minutes per day, a record high since Nielsen started measuring television in the 1950’s"
So right now, TV matters. But I feel kind of like this is the final turn on my favorite old rollercoaster...things are slowing down and I can see that the ride is almost over. And over by the parking lot a brand new, bigger, shinier, faster roller coaster is being built.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He will do his best next week to blog from the convention and let you know if there's any hope to be had.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Everything I Needed to Know About Working in Radio I Learned From Nick.....
Today's lesson: Everything I Needed to Know About Working in Radio I Learned From Nick
My first job in radio was at WSLR-AM/WKDD-FM in Akron, OH. I was a cocky college sophomore, 19, and ready to set the world on fire with my deep understanding of Kajagoogoo and Thomas Dolby's artistic sensibilities.
I worked for a guy named Nick Anthony. He was the PD/OD at the combo, and in the four years I worked there while finishing up college (I was on the 5.5 year plan), Nick taught me a lot. Not that he sat me down and lectured me, but I was watching him all the time. Here's what I learned from working for Nick, all lessons I try to share with my students every day.
1. Be Persistent.
One of my college buddies, Doug, was working at WSLR and told me they needed another part-timer. He gave me Nick's name and told me to call him. Well, Nick was just about impossible to get a hold of...he was working, running 2 stations. In order to get the job I finally had to march my resume down there and put it in his hands. You children of today, sending your emails. I had to DRIVE there. With a resume that I had to PAY someone to print. Bah....
2. Ratings Down? Tighten the Playlist.
First, I should say that the mid-80s WKDD rarely had low ratings. But I remember sitting in the studio one day and in comes Nick, pulling carts off the wall. "What's going on?" I asked. "Ratings went down," Nick answered. He was pulling out anything that was slow, or old. It seemed to me, a music geek, like the response of a crazy man. The guy had clearly lost his mind. Next book? Ratings back up. That taught me that though it might seem counter-intuitive for me, a guy who wanted a huge play list, the audience for WKDD didn't care that much about depth. Play the hits and shut up!
3. You Want to Threaten to Leave? Have Your Bags Packed!
So, I'm on overnights. There's this guy working 6-midnight. He's 16. I want to get off overnights. One morning, I'm complaining to the morning drive guy about how I'm gonna go into Nick's office and tell him he better move me to 6-midnight. Or else. The morning drive guy says "Or else what?" I said "I'll quit!" "Better have your bags packed kid. If you threaten something like that, you're gonna be outta here."
I was shocked. You mean, I can just go in and tell my boss how to run the station? What??!!
I never went in to Nick's office and threatened him. And I never forgot that if you're gonna threaten to quit over something, skip the threats. Just go find another job.
Leaving WKDD
Eventually I got canned from WKDD/WSLR after three dismal months on the sales team. I was a very poor salesman. I deserved to get canned. But I learned a lot while working there. And I learned that sales just wasn't the place for me.
And to this day, I still think Nick is great at his job. Akron-owned Rubber City Radio group (WQMX/WONE/WAKR) is one of the few remaining local groups that's still alive and innovating.
My first job in radio was at WSLR-AM/WKDD-FM in Akron, OH. I was a cocky college sophomore, 19, and ready to set the world on fire with my deep understanding of Kajagoogoo and Thomas Dolby's artistic sensibilities.
I worked for a guy named Nick Anthony. He was the PD/OD at the combo, and in the four years I worked there while finishing up college (I was on the 5.5 year plan), Nick taught me a lot. Not that he sat me down and lectured me, but I was watching him all the time. Here's what I learned from working for Nick, all lessons I try to share with my students every day.
1. Be Persistent.
One of my college buddies, Doug, was working at WSLR and told me they needed another part-timer. He gave me Nick's name and told me to call him. Well, Nick was just about impossible to get a hold of...he was working, running 2 stations. In order to get the job I finally had to march my resume down there and put it in his hands. You children of today, sending your emails. I had to DRIVE there. With a resume that I had to PAY someone to print. Bah....
2. Ratings Down? Tighten the Playlist.
First, I should say that the mid-80s WKDD rarely had low ratings. But I remember sitting in the studio one day and in comes Nick, pulling carts off the wall. "What's going on?" I asked. "Ratings went down," Nick answered. He was pulling out anything that was slow, or old. It seemed to me, a music geek, like the response of a crazy man. The guy had clearly lost his mind. Next book? Ratings back up. That taught me that though it might seem counter-intuitive for me, a guy who wanted a huge play list, the audience for WKDD didn't care that much about depth. Play the hits and shut up!
3. You Want to Threaten to Leave? Have Your Bags Packed!
So, I'm on overnights. There's this guy working 6-midnight. He's 16. I want to get off overnights. One morning, I'm complaining to the morning drive guy about how I'm gonna go into Nick's office and tell him he better move me to 6-midnight. Or else. The morning drive guy says "Or else what?" I said "I'll quit!" "Better have your bags packed kid. If you threaten something like that, you're gonna be outta here."
I was shocked. You mean, I can just go in and tell my boss how to run the station? What??!!
I never went in to Nick's office and threatened him. And I never forgot that if you're gonna threaten to quit over something, skip the threats. Just go find another job.
Leaving WKDD
Eventually I got canned from WKDD/WSLR after three dismal months on the sales team. I was a very poor salesman. I deserved to get canned. But I learned a lot while working there. And I learned that sales just wasn't the place for me.
And to this day, I still think Nick is great at his job. Akron-owned Rubber City Radio group (WQMX/WONE/WAKR) is one of the few remaining local groups that's still alive and innovating.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
To Teach or Not to Teach?
Todays Lesson: Henry Ford and Buggy Makers
I cannot get a recent response from a reader of the always excellent Ohio Media Watch blog out of my mind. I have tried, trust me. But this comment simply will not leave me alone.
Responding to a recent post on OMW about declining jobs in broadcasting, an OMW reader named Ann posted this:
QUOTING
"Are there still people rushing to broadcasts (SIC) schools hoping for a career on-air? Is that like studying to become a buggy-maker in the 1920s?"
END QUOTE
Ouch. I am one of the nameless horde that has left broadcasting (on a full time basis, at least) for the hallowed halls of academe. I admit this is a question I have struggled with since starting at U.A. in July of 2000, long before the current downtrend began.
Why teach students to go into a field that I left willingly? Why encourage them even though it wasn't until after I was out of broadcasting that I was able to discover the joys of being home on Christmas morning, or of relatively steady cost-of-living pay raises?
Given the recent steady stream of downbeat news about jobs in broadcasting, one might well argue that Ann is only too right. It may be that iPods and cell phones and Twitter posts are the popular entertainments of tomorrow. You may even hear folks arguing that TV will be relegated to a minimized status like the telegraph....it's still out there, but who really uses it anymore?
And if that is the case, of what value is anyone trained to be a broadcaster? Someone who can write, edit, shoot and produce? If anyone can pick up a camcorder and post video to their blog...then why even bother with paying someone to do that work? If major market news product will pop You Tube videos into their mix, why do they need any employees other than engineers and sales folks?
Oh Ann...you're breaking my heart. Am I guilty as charged? Am I training buggy makers while demand for that skill is about to be crushed by Henry Ford's Tin Lizzie?
I recently read a post from Dr. A. Gordon Ray about this very issue: the failure of companies to innovate and thus risk becoming a relic of the past. Dr. Ray suggests that organizations use the "Three R's" to help avoid becoming obsolete: Review, Request, Restructure. (It should be noted that Dr. Ray is a motivational speaker, so of course there may a be a bit of self-interest in his web posts...but I would argue that his basic premise is sound.)
His basic idea is that your organization should review your mission, request info from your customer base about their needs, and then restructure based on this information. Seems simple.
In our case, the review part is under way. We are already working through a thorough evaluation of what we're teaching based on what the industry tells us they want. We are also conducting other evaluations to meet state mandates for solid data about our program. We have had many lengthy conversations about this very topic. We are reviewing our tails off, and I think our faculty is quite sincere about asking ourselves hard questions about what we're doing and what we ought to be doing.
Ah, but Ann....what am I to do when we have more students than ever coming to us telling us they want to work in broadcasting? Our enrollment growth at U.A. has been astonishing...particularly in our media program. We keep adding sections of required course to "eliminate the backlog" of students who need those classes, and then the need never goes away. Our "customers" want our product.
Do we simply deny them entry? Can we be sure that they will never succeed? Do we know for certain that the industry won't grow again when the economy recovers? The state may see these programs as redundant, serving to train students for jobs that may not exist in ten years, but the students don't see it that way. Who's right?
It seems that the restructuring will come...either intitated by us as innovation, or initiated by the economic woes that will push state funding to U.A. to the point where hard decisions have to be made about programs.
But still....what about what the students want? Lost in all this discussion about what the right thing to do is the simple fact that lots of students still want to work in radio, tv, and film. I dunno Ann...I just dunno. People may see it as building more buggies when the automobile is about to take over...but that's hindsight. We don't know that these buggies are useless just yet. There may still be some life left in them.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He is really trying to review, request and restructure.
I cannot get a recent response from a reader of the always excellent Ohio Media Watch blog out of my mind. I have tried, trust me. But this comment simply will not leave me alone.
Responding to a recent post on OMW about declining jobs in broadcasting, an OMW reader named Ann posted this:
QUOTING
"Are there still people rushing to broadcasts (SIC) schools hoping for a career on-air? Is that like studying to become a buggy-maker in the 1920s?"
END QUOTE
Ouch. I am one of the nameless horde that has left broadcasting (on a full time basis, at least) for the hallowed halls of academe. I admit this is a question I have struggled with since starting at U.A. in July of 2000, long before the current downtrend began.
Why teach students to go into a field that I left willingly? Why encourage them even though it wasn't until after I was out of broadcasting that I was able to discover the joys of being home on Christmas morning, or of relatively steady cost-of-living pay raises?
Given the recent steady stream of downbeat news about jobs in broadcasting, one might well argue that Ann is only too right. It may be that iPods and cell phones and Twitter posts are the popular entertainments of tomorrow. You may even hear folks arguing that TV will be relegated to a minimized status like the telegraph....it's still out there, but who really uses it anymore?
And if that is the case, of what value is anyone trained to be a broadcaster? Someone who can write, edit, shoot and produce? If anyone can pick up a camcorder and post video to their blog...then why even bother with paying someone to do that work? If major market news product will pop You Tube videos into their mix, why do they need any employees other than engineers and sales folks?
Oh Ann...you're breaking my heart. Am I guilty as charged? Am I training buggy makers while demand for that skill is about to be crushed by Henry Ford's Tin Lizzie?
I recently read a post from Dr. A. Gordon Ray about this very issue: the failure of companies to innovate and thus risk becoming a relic of the past. Dr. Ray suggests that organizations use the "Three R's" to help avoid becoming obsolete: Review, Request, Restructure. (It should be noted that Dr. Ray is a motivational speaker, so of course there may a be a bit of self-interest in his web posts...but I would argue that his basic premise is sound.)
His basic idea is that your organization should review your mission, request info from your customer base about their needs, and then restructure based on this information. Seems simple.
In our case, the review part is under way. We are already working through a thorough evaluation of what we're teaching based on what the industry tells us they want. We are also conducting other evaluations to meet state mandates for solid data about our program. We have had many lengthy conversations about this very topic. We are reviewing our tails off, and I think our faculty is quite sincere about asking ourselves hard questions about what we're doing and what we ought to be doing.
Ah, but Ann....what am I to do when we have more students than ever coming to us telling us they want to work in broadcasting? Our enrollment growth at U.A. has been astonishing...particularly in our media program. We keep adding sections of required course to "eliminate the backlog" of students who need those classes, and then the need never goes away. Our "customers" want our product.
Do we simply deny them entry? Can we be sure that they will never succeed? Do we know for certain that the industry won't grow again when the economy recovers? The state may see these programs as redundant, serving to train students for jobs that may not exist in ten years, but the students don't see it that way. Who's right?
It seems that the restructuring will come...either intitated by us as innovation, or initiated by the economic woes that will push state funding to U.A. to the point where hard decisions have to be made about programs.
But still....what about what the students want? Lost in all this discussion about what the right thing to do is the simple fact that lots of students still want to work in radio, tv, and film. I dunno Ann...I just dunno. People may see it as building more buggies when the automobile is about to take over...but that's hindsight. We don't know that these buggies are useless just yet. There may still be some life left in them.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He is really trying to review, request and restructure.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Going Tapeless? Prepare to be Drawn & Quartered!
Today's lesson: We Got Trouble in Tech-City.
First: fair warning...today's post is quite techn-o-geek-o. In fact, I am wearing my favorite "I Void Warranties" t-shirt to write this, because I am tapping into my inner geek.
After more than two years of tentative forays into converting to a tapeless acquisition format here, I am still sitting on my hands, shooting miles of tape. This despite the fact that new tapeless cameras come out each day and the cost keeps coming down.
But when you have the kind of networked infrastructure we do, pulling the proverbial trigger ain't so easy. Let's review:
We have about 30 Avid clients, running on a pair of Avid Media Net servers. All clients are distributed throughout all three floors of the building with a good 3 miles of blue Cat-6 spaghetti in the walls (I know, we pulled it ourselves.)
Those clients are running Media Composer 3.1.
We are currently using a blend of JVC 500 & 5000 cameras for classes, and a bevy of DVX-100A's for the TV side of things. So in other words, we're all 25Mbps all day.
Recently, we were able to get our hands on two new Panasonic tapeless cams that fall right within our price range: the new 150 & 170 cameras. Like their predecessors, the DVX 100 and the HVX 200, both cams have fixed lenses. It's a limitation, but hey, we're talking education budgets here. We're lucky to be looking at these cams at all. But still, I have my checklist of what we wanted, even though we have very little money to spend.
So the first thing I noticed that I loved? Panasonic has put a switch on the side of the camera that allows me to choose whether I want the outer ring on the lens to control focus or iris. Score! This marks a major leap forward over the previous system on the DVX cam where the iris control was relegated to a dinky wheel/button combo on the side of the camera. Love it.
Both cams have XLR audio input. Check! Both cams use similar 3-ccd imagers. Check! Both cams are tapeless. Check! Both cams can change frame rates and codecs. Check!
Ah, but now we get down to the real nitty gritty: The 150 shoots AVCHD to a high capacity SD card. The 170 shoots only to P2 cards, but uses a variety of compressions including the P2 HD codec.
And so my dilemma begins....Avid does not support AVCHD directly imported into the system. So the 150 is out. Unless, of course,we want to have all students re-wrap the file as a P2 file.
Which I don't. Let's face it, all the advantages of tapeless transfer are lost if there's a necessary intermediate step of transcoding the file first. And although the 170 with P2 cards is a great solution, it's a bit pricey for us. Not only because the camera costs more, but because the cost of P2 cards is still too high. I am working with students, and lost cards are pretty likely. And at $800 per card, I can't afford that loss.
Avid says AVCHD support is low priority because it's a consumer format. Maybe it'll come, maybe not.
And so, on to Apple!
The folks in Cupertino are wisely format neutral. Final Cut brought the files right in off the SD card and I was editing almost immediately.
But of course, we have a large investment in a PC-based Avid infrastructure, complete with Media Net servers. Going to FCP as a solution not only means re-training all of our students, it means all new clients and a new server system. So going to HD 16x9 acquisition just meant all new hardware in the post side too.
But am I looking into it? You betcha. In my opinion, FCP already does a monstrously better job moving media in and out than does Avid. And while I still love the fluidity of editing using Avid during the middle phase of the process, I have just about had it with Tewksbury's attitude about formats. And their seeming inability to make a simple DVD from a finished project. (One-step has never worked right for us.)
So here we are...trapped. Anchored in place by our past alliances, and being pulled forward by the ever chugging train o' progress. If I can't figure out a way to either a) unhook safely from the Avid anchor or b) pull the anchor into the boxcar with us, then it looks like those opposing forces are going make a real mess of me.
Just like being drawn & quartered.
And in the end, none of it really matters. My students need to learn how to tell compelling stories, which they could just as readily do using VHS camcorders and linear editing. But if we don't start teaching them HD methods, they will be starting out at a disadvantage.
Let's all sing it together, like Kip in Napoleon Dynamite: "Yes, I love technology...not as much as you you see, but still, I love technology. Always and forever. Always and forever."
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He also uses the same keybaord to edit in FCP and Avid MCP. This means he can often be found hitting a button, shouting an expletvie because it was from the wrong software, and then hitting another button. No one should have to live like this.
First: fair warning...today's post is quite techn-o-geek-o. In fact, I am wearing my favorite "I Void Warranties" t-shirt to write this, because I am tapping into my inner geek.
After more than two years of tentative forays into converting to a tapeless acquisition format here, I am still sitting on my hands, shooting miles of tape. This despite the fact that new tapeless cameras come out each day and the cost keeps coming down.
But when you have the kind of networked infrastructure we do, pulling the proverbial trigger ain't so easy. Let's review:
We have about 30 Avid clients, running on a pair of Avid Media Net servers. All clients are distributed throughout all three floors of the building with a good 3 miles of blue Cat-6 spaghetti in the walls (I know, we pulled it ourselves.)
Those clients are running Media Composer 3.1.
We are currently using a blend of JVC 500 & 5000 cameras for classes, and a bevy of DVX-100A's for the TV side of things. So in other words, we're all 25Mbps all day.
Recently, we were able to get our hands on two new Panasonic tapeless cams that fall right within our price range: the new 150 & 170 cameras. Like their predecessors, the DVX 100 and the HVX 200, both cams have fixed lenses. It's a limitation, but hey, we're talking education budgets here. We're lucky to be looking at these cams at all. But still, I have my checklist of what we wanted, even though we have very little money to spend.
So the first thing I noticed that I loved? Panasonic has put a switch on the side of the camera that allows me to choose whether I want the outer ring on the lens to control focus or iris. Score! This marks a major leap forward over the previous system on the DVX cam where the iris control was relegated to a dinky wheel/button combo on the side of the camera. Love it.
Both cams have XLR audio input. Check! Both cams use similar 3-ccd imagers. Check! Both cams are tapeless. Check! Both cams can change frame rates and codecs. Check!
Ah, but now we get down to the real nitty gritty: The 150 shoots AVCHD to a high capacity SD card. The 170 shoots only to P2 cards, but uses a variety of compressions including the P2 HD codec.
And so my dilemma begins....Avid does not support AVCHD directly imported into the system. So the 150 is out. Unless, of course,we want to have all students re-wrap the file as a P2 file.
Which I don't. Let's face it, all the advantages of tapeless transfer are lost if there's a necessary intermediate step of transcoding the file first. And although the 170 with P2 cards is a great solution, it's a bit pricey for us. Not only because the camera costs more, but because the cost of P2 cards is still too high. I am working with students, and lost cards are pretty likely. And at $800 per card, I can't afford that loss.
Avid says AVCHD support is low priority because it's a consumer format. Maybe it'll come, maybe not.
And so, on to Apple!
The folks in Cupertino are wisely format neutral. Final Cut brought the files right in off the SD card and I was editing almost immediately.
But of course, we have a large investment in a PC-based Avid infrastructure, complete with Media Net servers. Going to FCP as a solution not only means re-training all of our students, it means all new clients and a new server system. So going to HD 16x9 acquisition just meant all new hardware in the post side too.
But am I looking into it? You betcha. In my opinion, FCP already does a monstrously better job moving media in and out than does Avid. And while I still love the fluidity of editing using Avid during the middle phase of the process, I have just about had it with Tewksbury's attitude about formats. And their seeming inability to make a simple DVD from a finished project. (One-step has never worked right for us.)
So here we are...trapped. Anchored in place by our past alliances, and being pulled forward by the ever chugging train o' progress. If I can't figure out a way to either a) unhook safely from the Avid anchor or b) pull the anchor into the boxcar with us, then it looks like those opposing forces are going make a real mess of me.
Just like being drawn & quartered.
And in the end, none of it really matters. My students need to learn how to tell compelling stories, which they could just as readily do using VHS camcorders and linear editing. But if we don't start teaching them HD methods, they will be starting out at a disadvantage.
Let's all sing it together, like Kip in Napoleon Dynamite: "Yes, I love technology...not as much as you you see, but still, I love technology. Always and forever. Always and forever."
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He also uses the same keybaord to edit in FCP and Avid MCP. This means he can often be found hitting a button, shouting an expletvie because it was from the wrong software, and then hitting another button. No one should have to live like this.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
But Sirius-ly Folks.....
Hi Gang. Today's lesson is: How to kill the golden goose. Or the maybe golden dog.
Let's go back to early 2005. CBS Radio was making obscene profits, Howard Stern was being labeled obscene by FCC Chair Kevin Martin, and Sirius and XM were about to go on an obscene spending spree trying to beat each other into submission.
Fast forward to 2009: CBS Radio has fallen so far it seems like it's impossible to get back up again, Howard Stern could be a lot more obscene but isn't, and Sirius has beaten XM into submission.
Despite assurances to the contrary, I am afraid my beloved Sirius is about to become exactly the type of monolithic, out of touch company that I despise.
The first sign: Summer, 2008- Super Shuffle is pushed to online delivery only, then disappears from the web site after the merger. I know it's borderline pathetic that I care about this. But let me do some 'splainin', as Ricky Ricardo might say.
Once upon a time, when I was just a young lad, there was this radio station. It wasn't just some radio station...it was THE station. The Buzzard. If you didn't grow up during this time, you probably will never understand the tremendous impact of The Buzzard, WMMS. It was like a cool, secret clubhouse where your parents would never even think of visiting. And the music was awesome.
One of the things that I used to love about the early Buzzard was that they would never allow themselves to be boxed in musically. They wouldn’t hesitate to go from a rock song to a country song, straight on into classical if they felt like it. It was whatever they felt like. And it was really cool.
Of course, eventually the suits insisted that the mighty Buzzard had to become more like other stations, which made it common. It was like the kid from school who always dressed up really vintage punk suddenly showed up wearing Hollister. It was just wrong.
So fast forward again to 2006. I buy a Sirius radio when Stern moved from broadcast airwaves to satellite signals. And I trip upon Super Shuffle. Super Shuffle really reminded me of the Buzzard…no real format, just lots of music. They might go from “Ring of Fire” to “Girls on Film” to “I Love This Bar.”
And it was awesome.
Not only because of the vast Sirius library, but because there were no blathering DJs filling my radio with the same tired and trite nonsense about K-Fed and Britney. Like the “Jack FM” format, Super Shuffle relied on variety of music and very little nonsense from air talent.
Even more: on Saturdays, they would bring in special guest hosts who would come in and play anything they wanted. Tom Petty’s show was awesome. And believe it or not, Jerry Springer’s show was probably one of the best I’d ever heard.
Super Shuffle was cool. It was hip. It was odd. And so of course, it had to die.
Now listen, I’ve been around the block enough to know the futility of what I’m about to admit. In fact, I am somewhat embarrassed by what I am about to say.
I wrote a letter to Sirius.
You know, the agitated listener whining about the format change that is based on pretty solid data showing nobody listened?
But I listened.
And I don’t count.
So Sirius sent me the perfunctory auto-response thanking me for writing and assuring me they would take my opinion into account.
And then they pulled Super Shuffle from the web site. It was dead.
Fast forward to February 2009. Sirius sends me an email announcing that not only are they no longer offering Super Shuffle, but now in order to keep my ability to listen online, I will have to pay extra. No more freebies.
And oh, by the way, even though we agreed to the FCC condition’s on the merger with XM about not raising prices for a period of time, we didn’t agree to not raise other things…so secondary subscriptions are going up and we are un-bundling the online listening from the radio package.
Then last week, the truth was revealed. Sirius needs a bailout. Too much debt, too little liquidity. (Read all about it here.)
Honestly, I am not sure if I will continue on as a Sirius subscriber. Super Shuffle is gone. Howard is talking retirement when his 5-year deal is up in late 2010. Why keep forking out hundreds of dollars for product that is progressively growing weaker (my opinion) and costing me more?
But man, I really do miss The Mighty Buzzard. I would run back to radio if only somebody somewhere had enough guts to program music without bashing the same 12 songs into my head on a short rotation. I’ve heard enough Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin to last me for the rest of my life. But maybe once in a while somebody could play a little Artful Dodger? Squeeze? Johnny Cash? Wilson Pickett? Wilco? Stabilisers?
Good thing I bought me a new radio with an iPod input. Maybe the right playlist will be my salvation. I will program my iPod to generate lists called “Buzzard Radio”. And I will wish that I still had Matt, Denny, Leo, Crash, Bash, and Boom to talk to me in between songs.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He is also starting to sound like a crabby old guy wishing for the Good Ole Days when music was awesome and you kids today just don't get it.
Let's go back to early 2005. CBS Radio was making obscene profits, Howard Stern was being labeled obscene by FCC Chair Kevin Martin, and Sirius and XM were about to go on an obscene spending spree trying to beat each other into submission.
Fast forward to 2009: CBS Radio has fallen so far it seems like it's impossible to get back up again, Howard Stern could be a lot more obscene but isn't, and Sirius has beaten XM into submission.
Despite assurances to the contrary, I am afraid my beloved Sirius is about to become exactly the type of monolithic, out of touch company that I despise.
The first sign: Summer, 2008- Super Shuffle is pushed to online delivery only, then disappears from the web site after the merger. I know it's borderline pathetic that I care about this. But let me do some 'splainin', as Ricky Ricardo might say.
Once upon a time, when I was just a young lad, there was this radio station. It wasn't just some radio station...it was THE station. The Buzzard. If you didn't grow up during this time, you probably will never understand the tremendous impact of The Buzzard, WMMS. It was like a cool, secret clubhouse where your parents would never even think of visiting. And the music was awesome.
One of the things that I used to love about the early Buzzard was that they would never allow themselves to be boxed in musically. They wouldn’t hesitate to go from a rock song to a country song, straight on into classical if they felt like it. It was whatever they felt like. And it was really cool.
Of course, eventually the suits insisted that the mighty Buzzard had to become more like other stations, which made it common. It was like the kid from school who always dressed up really vintage punk suddenly showed up wearing Hollister. It was just wrong.
So fast forward again to 2006. I buy a Sirius radio when Stern moved from broadcast airwaves to satellite signals. And I trip upon Super Shuffle. Super Shuffle really reminded me of the Buzzard…no real format, just lots of music. They might go from “Ring of Fire” to “Girls on Film” to “I Love This Bar.”
And it was awesome.
Not only because of the vast Sirius library, but because there were no blathering DJs filling my radio with the same tired and trite nonsense about K-Fed and Britney. Like the “Jack FM” format, Super Shuffle relied on variety of music and very little nonsense from air talent.
Even more: on Saturdays, they would bring in special guest hosts who would come in and play anything they wanted. Tom Petty’s show was awesome. And believe it or not, Jerry Springer’s show was probably one of the best I’d ever heard.
Super Shuffle was cool. It was hip. It was odd. And so of course, it had to die.
Now listen, I’ve been around the block enough to know the futility of what I’m about to admit. In fact, I am somewhat embarrassed by what I am about to say.
I wrote a letter to Sirius.
You know, the agitated listener whining about the format change that is based on pretty solid data showing nobody listened?
But I listened.
And I don’t count.
So Sirius sent me the perfunctory auto-response thanking me for writing and assuring me they would take my opinion into account.
And then they pulled Super Shuffle from the web site. It was dead.
Fast forward to February 2009. Sirius sends me an email announcing that not only are they no longer offering Super Shuffle, but now in order to keep my ability to listen online, I will have to pay extra. No more freebies.
And oh, by the way, even though we agreed to the FCC condition’s on the merger with XM about not raising prices for a period of time, we didn’t agree to not raise other things…so secondary subscriptions are going up and we are un-bundling the online listening from the radio package.
Then last week, the truth was revealed. Sirius needs a bailout. Too much debt, too little liquidity. (Read all about it here.)
Honestly, I am not sure if I will continue on as a Sirius subscriber. Super Shuffle is gone. Howard is talking retirement when his 5-year deal is up in late 2010. Why keep forking out hundreds of dollars for product that is progressively growing weaker (my opinion) and costing me more?
But man, I really do miss The Mighty Buzzard. I would run back to radio if only somebody somewhere had enough guts to program music without bashing the same 12 songs into my head on a short rotation. I’ve heard enough Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin to last me for the rest of my life. But maybe once in a while somebody could play a little Artful Dodger? Squeeze? Johnny Cash? Wilson Pickett? Wilco? Stabilisers?
Good thing I bought me a new radio with an iPod input. Maybe the right playlist will be my salvation. I will program my iPod to generate lists called “Buzzard Radio”. And I will wish that I still had Matt, Denny, Leo, Crash, Bash, and Boom to talk to me in between songs.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He is also starting to sound like a crabby old guy wishing for the Good Ole Days when music was awesome and you kids today just don't get it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
And PINGO is its name, oh!
Each day we see news of changes in how media companies are operating, many of those changes driven by the fact that advertising revenues are down, and of course those ad revenues are down because of the larger economic problems facing this trouble.
Just in the past few days, Channels 19 and 3 announced an agreement to start pooling video. What this really means is obviously something that we won’t really know for some time now, but the mere fact that there is an agreement seemed like something that was impossible just a few short years ago. Washington DC station WUSA’s announcement a few weeks ago that it was moving towards the VJ’s (video journalists) or MOJO’s (mobile journalists) was another example of the unthinkable: a large market sending out “one-man-bands.”
For those of you not in the know, that’s short for sending one person out to shoot and report on a story.
I would argue that this activity might be a precursor to an even bigger change in how business is done. Let’s assume that the economy takes a while to improve…if that’s so, what I am about to describe to you may come to pass sooner rather than later. But rest assured my friends; I believe this is going to come to pass because there is mounting evidence that in small ways, it is already happening.
Shout it: “PINGO!” It’s not a wacky new version of Bingo! “PINGO” is my term (if you intend to rip me off here, please at least have the courtesy to cite your sources!) for what we are likely to see as the future of newsgathering…
Platform Independent News Gathering Organization. PINGO.
A company that exists to cover local news markets and generates news content in a variety of forms (video, audio, online) for a group of clients (broadcasters, newspapers). This means that the new company, let’s say PINGO-Akron, consists of a news team of multi-taskers who write in the hybrid AP print-online style and generate audio and images for clients.
Does this mean fewer voices and fewer points of view? Probably. Does this mean that station(s) will have to work with the PINGO-Akron folks to arrange for anchors? Maybe.
Can stations resist the incredible savings to them if they no longer have to pay all those people? Can they resist the savings afforded to them by no longer having to invest in the kind of infrastructure needed to carry on newsgathering today? I’m talking about tens or hundreds of thousands invested in cameras, news vehicles, live links, and editing infrastructure?
Now I know the skeptics out there will argue “what about breaking news? What about enterprise?”
The GM’s meanwhile will ask “what about a return to higher profit margins?” Stations will always need a couple of cameras, maybe a Final Cut workstation or two, but the kind of investment needed today would mostly be gone tomorrow if one decides to play PINGO.
Listen: is there anybody out there more capable of making this a reality than the AP? The AP model, which may have seemed outdated a few years ago, now is looking quite smart. A modest change in their practices and some investment in infrastructure could have the AP brand ruling the airwaves and Internet in a new way. A way that turns TV stations into conduits for local content, which can easily be branded for each station. One only has to look at Time Warner’s late 1990s experiments in doing that in Florida to see that it can be done.
AP already provides a significant chunk of the content for The Akron Beacon Journal and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Why not TV too?
And there are other models. Rubber City Radio Group in Akron is a trio of radio stations. And they could have easily chosen to remain just that. But the combo of News Director Ed Esposito and PD Chuck Collins have created something that was quite interesting: Akron News Now
Akron News Now is a web site that the station’s news team, one of the best in Ohio, keeps up dated with local stories, and sometimes video. Now skeptics can say “sure, but they’re using consumer cameras.”
Have you WATCHED TV lately? When you’re station is running clips from You Tube, does the gear really matter anymore?
Nope. We can all complain and hide our heads….or we can gather up our chips and start getting ready to play PINGO. The folks at Rubber City Radio already have a bunch of chips on the board. The folks at the Beacon are putting video online. Fox 8 seems to spend more time promoting it’s Twitter feeds, new website, and Facebook contests than actually reporting recently.
If the economic times don’t improve, PINGO will be playing at a station near you within 36 months from today, 2/18/09. Mark your calendar, and prepare to be amazed at the Media Doctor’s genius! And mark my words: our students will be ready.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He is also the single smartest guy on the face of the planet. If you don’t count about 9.7 million folks in China. And 2.9 million in India. And 790,000 in Japan. And….well, you get the idea. But really, he’s pretty smart. Unless he’s wrong about all this.
Just in the past few days, Channels 19 and 3 announced an agreement to start pooling video. What this really means is obviously something that we won’t really know for some time now, but the mere fact that there is an agreement seemed like something that was impossible just a few short years ago. Washington DC station WUSA’s announcement a few weeks ago that it was moving towards the VJ’s (video journalists) or MOJO’s (mobile journalists) was another example of the unthinkable: a large market sending out “one-man-bands.”
For those of you not in the know, that’s short for sending one person out to shoot and report on a story.
I would argue that this activity might be a precursor to an even bigger change in how business is done. Let’s assume that the economy takes a while to improve…if that’s so, what I am about to describe to you may come to pass sooner rather than later. But rest assured my friends; I believe this is going to come to pass because there is mounting evidence that in small ways, it is already happening.
Shout it: “PINGO!” It’s not a wacky new version of Bingo! “PINGO” is my term (if you intend to rip me off here, please at least have the courtesy to cite your sources!) for what we are likely to see as the future of newsgathering…
Platform Independent News Gathering Organization. PINGO.
A company that exists to cover local news markets and generates news content in a variety of forms (video, audio, online) for a group of clients (broadcasters, newspapers). This means that the new company, let’s say PINGO-Akron, consists of a news team of multi-taskers who write in the hybrid AP print-online style and generate audio and images for clients.
Does this mean fewer voices and fewer points of view? Probably. Does this mean that station(s) will have to work with the PINGO-Akron folks to arrange for anchors? Maybe.
Can stations resist the incredible savings to them if they no longer have to pay all those people? Can they resist the savings afforded to them by no longer having to invest in the kind of infrastructure needed to carry on newsgathering today? I’m talking about tens or hundreds of thousands invested in cameras, news vehicles, live links, and editing infrastructure?
Now I know the skeptics out there will argue “what about breaking news? What about enterprise?”
The GM’s meanwhile will ask “what about a return to higher profit margins?” Stations will always need a couple of cameras, maybe a Final Cut workstation or two, but the kind of investment needed today would mostly be gone tomorrow if one decides to play PINGO.
Listen: is there anybody out there more capable of making this a reality than the AP? The AP model, which may have seemed outdated a few years ago, now is looking quite smart. A modest change in their practices and some investment in infrastructure could have the AP brand ruling the airwaves and Internet in a new way. A way that turns TV stations into conduits for local content, which can easily be branded for each station. One only has to look at Time Warner’s late 1990s experiments in doing that in Florida to see that it can be done.
AP already provides a significant chunk of the content for The Akron Beacon Journal and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Why not TV too?
And there are other models. Rubber City Radio Group in Akron is a trio of radio stations. And they could have easily chosen to remain just that. But the combo of News Director Ed Esposito and PD Chuck Collins have created something that was quite interesting: Akron News Now
Akron News Now is a web site that the station’s news team, one of the best in Ohio, keeps up dated with local stories, and sometimes video. Now skeptics can say “sure, but they’re using consumer cameras.”
Have you WATCHED TV lately? When you’re station is running clips from You Tube, does the gear really matter anymore?
Nope. We can all complain and hide our heads….or we can gather up our chips and start getting ready to play PINGO. The folks at Rubber City Radio already have a bunch of chips on the board. The folks at the Beacon are putting video online. Fox 8 seems to spend more time promoting it’s Twitter feeds, new website, and Facebook contests than actually reporting recently.
If the economic times don’t improve, PINGO will be playing at a station near you within 36 months from today, 2/18/09. Mark your calendar, and prepare to be amazed at the Media Doctor’s genius! And mark my words: our students will be ready.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is General Manager of The University of Akron’s Z-TV. He is also the single smartest guy on the face of the planet. If you don’t count about 9.7 million folks in China. And 2.9 million in India. And 790,000 in Japan. And….well, you get the idea. But really, he’s pretty smart. Unless he’s wrong about all this.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ok, now we're getting into the pool....how's the water?
From the most recent TV Newsday, it appears the article I posted on my UA blog (www3.uakron.edu/schlcomm/Hoffman) back in January was amazingly accurate....like I can SEE THE FUTURE. And I quote:
WOIO, WKYC Create Video News Pool
TVNEWSDAY, Feb 16 2009, 8:35 AM ET
In what's beginning to look an industry trend, two network affiliated stations in Cleveland — Raycom WOIO (CBS) and Gannett's WKYC (NBC) — are launching a news sharing arrangement to cost cut and free up crews for enterprise reporting.
Videographers from either station will cover basic events of mutual interest including news conferences, court hearings, groundbreaking ceremonies and other planned public events.
"This new collaboration will allow both stations to shift more resources towards enterprise stories that support our individual style of news gathering," said Brooke Spectorsky, president and GM of WKYC.
"We, like all businesses, are looking for ways to be more efficient without compromising the fine work being done by our reporters and anchors," said Bill Applegate, VP and GM of WOIO.
Other stations are looking at pooling arrangements, mostly notably NBC and Fox. They combined resources in Philadelphia last year and say they plan to do it in other markets where they both have stations: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Washington.
Initial Reaction?
The initial reaction online from various "unnamed sources" who are friendly to your blog-meister is one of frustration over serving multiple masters and concern over how the workload will be parsed out....
But rest assured, faithful readers....this is not the end.
Next prediction: WJW and WEWS will get ever more friendly...I agree with OMW blog-meister-general that the Fox 8 folks and the Scripps bunch will be looking for similar economies of scale.
Stay tuned.....
WOIO, WKYC Create Video News Pool
TVNEWSDAY, Feb 16 2009, 8:35 AM ET
In what's beginning to look an industry trend, two network affiliated stations in Cleveland — Raycom WOIO (CBS) and Gannett's WKYC (NBC) — are launching a news sharing arrangement to cost cut and free up crews for enterprise reporting.
Videographers from either station will cover basic events of mutual interest including news conferences, court hearings, groundbreaking ceremonies and other planned public events.
"This new collaboration will allow both stations to shift more resources towards enterprise stories that support our individual style of news gathering," said Brooke Spectorsky, president and GM of WKYC.
"We, like all businesses, are looking for ways to be more efficient without compromising the fine work being done by our reporters and anchors," said Bill Applegate, VP and GM of WOIO.
Other stations are looking at pooling arrangements, mostly notably NBC and Fox. They combined resources in Philadelphia last year and say they plan to do it in other markets where they both have stations: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Washington.
Initial Reaction?
The initial reaction online from various "unnamed sources" who are friendly to your blog-meister is one of frustration over serving multiple masters and concern over how the workload will be parsed out....
But rest assured, faithful readers....this is not the end.
Next prediction: WJW and WEWS will get ever more friendly...I agree with OMW blog-meister-general that the Fox 8 folks and the Scripps bunch will be looking for similar economies of scale.
Stay tuned.....
Diving Into The Pool
Saying TV news is competitive is akin to saying one needs air and water to live. It’s such an obvious statement that I can’t imagine why you’re still reading this.
And yet......
How much longer before a major media market begins to explore ways for stations to pool resources rather than compete?
Before you rush to correct me, and tell me the unions and guilds will never allow it to happen, that producers and news directors would rather die in a knife-fight with the competition than rely on them for footage, let me explain why I pose the question.
First, I am not alone in posing this question. Writer Lauren Rich Fine recently asked the same question, and offered some reasons why she believes that stations may move in this direction. In Cincinnati, stations have agreed to pool resources in covering Bengals games. In Denver, reports say the NBC affiliate and Telemundo are playing somewhat nice together,
I am not crazy. It’s not impossible, And in many cases where there is shared corporate parentage, the idea is already being implemented.
But what about in cases of hardened competitors? People who engage in battle every day to beat the other by seconds? Can they ever rely on each other for footage? Are they so trained to seek exclusives that this idea will never take root?
Well, anyone who’s ever actually BEEN out in the field knows the truth: we already do. Listen, news directors know this goes on, but nobody really wants to admit it: colleagues often share non-exclusive footage with each other as a matter of professional courtesy.
There were many occasions when I would go to folks from other stations because we missed something. And they gave up the video. And there were plenty of times where we provided video to someone who had missed a press conference, etc. Although we were competitors, we were also mostly friendly with each other, and so nobody wanted to see somebody else get a whooping from the ND because they (God forbid!) missed the press conference of the opening of another fast food chain or such other nonsense.
So my question is this: why not formalize the agreement? Not for exclusives, not for investigative reports, but for the daily dog-and-pony shows, press conferences, weather footage, and other routine items it would make sense.
In fact, I would argue that having full-res video online as a shared local resource would make local coverage cheaper, and would also result in fewer crews getting “jerked around” from story to story. And not being asked by an assignment editor to be in two places at one time for two different B.S. stories is something I think we all could live with.
Would this also mean a loss of jobs? Probably. But aren’t we already shedding jobs like a dog sheds it’s winter coat in May? Maybe if stations are able to maintain coverage with a pool approach, the jobs that still exist will continue to exist.
But hey...we know you gotta get the EXCLUSIVE video of the same thing everyone else has. That’s the rule, right?
And yet......
How much longer before a major media market begins to explore ways for stations to pool resources rather than compete?
Before you rush to correct me, and tell me the unions and guilds will never allow it to happen, that producers and news directors would rather die in a knife-fight with the competition than rely on them for footage, let me explain why I pose the question.
First, I am not alone in posing this question. Writer Lauren Rich Fine recently asked the same question, and offered some reasons why she believes that stations may move in this direction. In Cincinnati, stations have agreed to pool resources in covering Bengals games. In Denver, reports say the NBC affiliate and Telemundo are playing somewhat nice together,
I am not crazy. It’s not impossible, And in many cases where there is shared corporate parentage, the idea is already being implemented.
But what about in cases of hardened competitors? People who engage in battle every day to beat the other by seconds? Can they ever rely on each other for footage? Are they so trained to seek exclusives that this idea will never take root?
Well, anyone who’s ever actually BEEN out in the field knows the truth: we already do. Listen, news directors know this goes on, but nobody really wants to admit it: colleagues often share non-exclusive footage with each other as a matter of professional courtesy.
There were many occasions when I would go to folks from other stations because we missed something. And they gave up the video. And there were plenty of times where we provided video to someone who had missed a press conference, etc. Although we were competitors, we were also mostly friendly with each other, and so nobody wanted to see somebody else get a whooping from the ND because they (God forbid!) missed the press conference of the opening of another fast food chain or such other nonsense.
So my question is this: why not formalize the agreement? Not for exclusives, not for investigative reports, but for the daily dog-and-pony shows, press conferences, weather footage, and other routine items it would make sense.
In fact, I would argue that having full-res video online as a shared local resource would make local coverage cheaper, and would also result in fewer crews getting “jerked around” from story to story. And not being asked by an assignment editor to be in two places at one time for two different B.S. stories is something I think we all could live with.
Would this also mean a loss of jobs? Probably. But aren’t we already shedding jobs like a dog sheds it’s winter coat in May? Maybe if stations are able to maintain coverage with a pool approach, the jobs that still exist will continue to exist.
But hey...we know you gotta get the EXCLUSIVE video of the same thing everyone else has. That’s the rule, right?
Monday, February 16, 2009
If You Can't Say Anything Nice....
I’m going to start this by tossing out some letters, which I will refer back to later:
SPJ, NPPA, RTNDA. As you can see, I am teasing you right from the top!
Today’s assignment: explain the concept of “cross talk” or “happy talk” between news anchors.
What am I talking about? Well surely, if you’ve ever watched any local news on TV, you know. An anchor finishes reading the story, and then turns to their co-anchor, and before starting the next story says something tremendously useful like “wow, that just breaks your heart.”
Ah. So that’s how I am supposed to feel. I find this type of news very instructive, because I lack an actual heart. My heart was crushed and removed by a series of pre-teen girls back in middle school, leaving only a shell of a human behind. But I digress…
Now listen, I’m no idiot. I know that the research says viewers like this. They feel that the person giving them the news is their friend, talking with them through the magical box that glows at night. Warm. Fuzzy. Consultants say cross talk gives the station a distinctive personality.
One cannot help but notice that each station is going for a particular feel that sets them apart form the competition. For example, in our market I know one station is the “hip, edgy” station by the cross talk (example: “you are not going to believe what this idiot did!”). Another station is going for the “hometown” feel (example: “you’re heart really goes out to this family”). Yet another station is after the “staid” feel (example: “thanks for that update.”)
But some stations have really gotten very aggressive with their cross talk lately. I mean, they are really cross. Take for example, an anchor in the Cleveland market who recently ended a story about a robbery by saying “let’s hope that scumbag gets what he deserves.” Ok. First, do I really need to give the lecture about the legal system? That being charged doesn’t make one guilty?
Secondly, as was the case in this story, let’s just suppose there’s an eyewitness…a neighbor who tells the news crew they saw the guy doing the thing that is alleged. Again, do I need to dig up the research that shows the great fallibility of eyewitness testimony? Any first year law student can tell you that would be among your first “go to” arguments. “Mr. Witness, how can you be certain it was my client? Wasn’t it dark? Were you wearing your glasses?” Boom. Acquittal.
And finally, any corporate suit will tell you that being sued by an innocent person for calling them a “scumbag” on the air is just a little less fun than a root canal without anesthetic.
So why? Why, oh why does this happen? Because in our rush to establish a feel, we often overlook the actual content of the cross talk, or in some cases, we actually intend the cross talk to rile up our viewers. It’s like we’re saying “We’re outraged just like you are!!!”
And so back to those letters we started out with: SPJ, RTNDA, NPPA. Each of these organizations has published a Code of Ethics for journalists. All three organizations concur: journalists should refrain from injecting opinion into news content. So, that leaves me with only a couple of possible assumptions. First, it may mean many TV news organizations are disregarding these ideals entirely. Or secondly, perhaps it means that many organizations consider anchors to be anything other than journalists. I refuse to accept either idea. In fact, I would argue that you can tell that many anchors actually dislike this part of their job intensely.
In fact I will name names: Stacey Bell of Fox 8, WJW. I am consistently impressed by Ms. Bell’s restraint, and her deft way of steering out of dangerous editorializing with a few well-chosen words. She often slams on the brakes, even when it seems like her co-anchors might want to pull an editorial comment out of her. Joining Ms. Bell on my A-Team is WKYC 7:00 p.m. anchor Eric Mansfield. Forget the fact that I used to scream, “get away from my desk, Derek!” when he was an intern at WAKC-TV. The truth is, Mr. Mansfield is one of the most professional news anchors I have seen. I would like to say he got it from me, but the truth is he was already that way before I met him. WKYC’s “Report the Facts, Respect the Truth” catchphrase is in good hands with Eric. But for every anchor that I could list here, there are three that belong in the doghouse.
Since I am such a class act, I won’t name names here. But you know who you are, and you should be ashamed. It is only my aforementioned gentility that keeps me from calling you on this.
Now, probably it’s because I’m old and crabby, but I will go this argument a bit further out on the limb. I actually yell at my TV when an anchor tells me “this is a sad story.”
I leap off my couch and shout with tremendous ferocity: “No, I am happy! I will not knuckle under to your emotional tyranny. You cannot tell me how to feel, Big Brother!”
After all, if the shooter and the reporter have done their job well, I am quite likely to feel sad at the end of that story. So what is that comment from the anchor about? Empathy? Amplification? Explanation for the heartless (see my statement above)?
I’m sorry, but I cannot help but see this as opinion. Ok for weather stories, but not so much for murders, fires, or political stories.
I understand that the days of Edward R. Murrow’s straight-faced dispassion are long gone. But can we at least all agree that injecting opinion is unethical? I am not making this up, and such esteemed organizations as the RTNDA are there to back me up.
So, I work each day to fight back just a little. I force my students to read the codes of ethics. They are attached to my course syllabus. I make sure they try to avoid editorializing in cross-talk. But I also tell them that someday, if they work really hard and get lucky, they are going to be asked to make a choice between what’s ethical, and what’s popular.
I can only hope that they wind up on my A-Team with Ms. Bell and Mr. Mansfield. The doghouse is already way too crowded.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is a former reporter, producer, and director who now teaches media at The University of Akron. And he is always right, so too bad for you.
SPJ, NPPA, RTNDA. As you can see, I am teasing you right from the top!
Today’s assignment: explain the concept of “cross talk” or “happy talk” between news anchors.
What am I talking about? Well surely, if you’ve ever watched any local news on TV, you know. An anchor finishes reading the story, and then turns to their co-anchor, and before starting the next story says something tremendously useful like “wow, that just breaks your heart.”
Ah. So that’s how I am supposed to feel. I find this type of news very instructive, because I lack an actual heart. My heart was crushed and removed by a series of pre-teen girls back in middle school, leaving only a shell of a human behind. But I digress…
Now listen, I’m no idiot. I know that the research says viewers like this. They feel that the person giving them the news is their friend, talking with them through the magical box that glows at night. Warm. Fuzzy. Consultants say cross talk gives the station a distinctive personality.
One cannot help but notice that each station is going for a particular feel that sets them apart form the competition. For example, in our market I know one station is the “hip, edgy” station by the cross talk (example: “you are not going to believe what this idiot did!”). Another station is going for the “hometown” feel (example: “you’re heart really goes out to this family”). Yet another station is after the “staid” feel (example: “thanks for that update.”)
But some stations have really gotten very aggressive with their cross talk lately. I mean, they are really cross. Take for example, an anchor in the Cleveland market who recently ended a story about a robbery by saying “let’s hope that scumbag gets what he deserves.” Ok. First, do I really need to give the lecture about the legal system? That being charged doesn’t make one guilty?
Secondly, as was the case in this story, let’s just suppose there’s an eyewitness…a neighbor who tells the news crew they saw the guy doing the thing that is alleged. Again, do I need to dig up the research that shows the great fallibility of eyewitness testimony? Any first year law student can tell you that would be among your first “go to” arguments. “Mr. Witness, how can you be certain it was my client? Wasn’t it dark? Were you wearing your glasses?” Boom. Acquittal.
And finally, any corporate suit will tell you that being sued by an innocent person for calling them a “scumbag” on the air is just a little less fun than a root canal without anesthetic.
So why? Why, oh why does this happen? Because in our rush to establish a feel, we often overlook the actual content of the cross talk, or in some cases, we actually intend the cross talk to rile up our viewers. It’s like we’re saying “We’re outraged just like you are!!!”
And so back to those letters we started out with: SPJ, RTNDA, NPPA. Each of these organizations has published a Code of Ethics for journalists. All three organizations concur: journalists should refrain from injecting opinion into news content. So, that leaves me with only a couple of possible assumptions. First, it may mean many TV news organizations are disregarding these ideals entirely. Or secondly, perhaps it means that many organizations consider anchors to be anything other than journalists. I refuse to accept either idea. In fact, I would argue that you can tell that many anchors actually dislike this part of their job intensely.
In fact I will name names: Stacey Bell of Fox 8, WJW. I am consistently impressed by Ms. Bell’s restraint, and her deft way of steering out of dangerous editorializing with a few well-chosen words. She often slams on the brakes, even when it seems like her co-anchors might want to pull an editorial comment out of her. Joining Ms. Bell on my A-Team is WKYC 7:00 p.m. anchor Eric Mansfield. Forget the fact that I used to scream, “get away from my desk, Derek!” when he was an intern at WAKC-TV. The truth is, Mr. Mansfield is one of the most professional news anchors I have seen. I would like to say he got it from me, but the truth is he was already that way before I met him. WKYC’s “Report the Facts, Respect the Truth” catchphrase is in good hands with Eric. But for every anchor that I could list here, there are three that belong in the doghouse.
Since I am such a class act, I won’t name names here. But you know who you are, and you should be ashamed. It is only my aforementioned gentility that keeps me from calling you on this.
Now, probably it’s because I’m old and crabby, but I will go this argument a bit further out on the limb. I actually yell at my TV when an anchor tells me “this is a sad story.”
I leap off my couch and shout with tremendous ferocity: “No, I am happy! I will not knuckle under to your emotional tyranny. You cannot tell me how to feel, Big Brother!”
After all, if the shooter and the reporter have done their job well, I am quite likely to feel sad at the end of that story. So what is that comment from the anchor about? Empathy? Amplification? Explanation for the heartless (see my statement above)?
I’m sorry, but I cannot help but see this as opinion. Ok for weather stories, but not so much for murders, fires, or political stories.
I understand that the days of Edward R. Murrow’s straight-faced dispassion are long gone. But can we at least all agree that injecting opinion is unethical? I am not making this up, and such esteemed organizations as the RTNDA are there to back me up.
So, I work each day to fight back just a little. I force my students to read the codes of ethics. They are attached to my course syllabus. I make sure they try to avoid editorializing in cross-talk. But I also tell them that someday, if they work really hard and get lucky, they are going to be asked to make a choice between what’s ethical, and what’s popular.
I can only hope that they wind up on my A-Team with Ms. Bell and Mr. Mansfield. The doghouse is already way too crowded.
Dr. Phil Hoffman is a former reporter, producer, and director who now teaches media at The University of Akron. And he is always right, so too bad for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)