Attribution In The Digital Age

Honing Skills, Survival Kit, Writing Help Comments Off on Attribution In The Digital Age
Nov 052015

Recently, two stations in Boston were accused of not properly attributing a story by a competitor when writing off the AP wire. The AP copy attributed the story to a specific TV station. Two competitors did not mention that station in the story, but extensively used the wording the AP wire quoted in it’s attribution.  This Adweek story then goes on to state “While attribution is always the right thing to do, AP clients can rewrite stories to suit their audience, even leaving out attribution if they desire. But sometimes a tip of that hat can go a long way.”

Technically this is true, but there’s an important point to make. From the way the copy was written it appears the AP did not independently verify the story and simply quoted WFXT throughout. The AP does this from time-to-time. It will pick up a story and occasionally attribute it to another news organization. At this point, issues can arise for “clients” deciding whether to post the story. The AP attributed. So why not your news organization? In TV news, some managers do not allow attribution to a competitor, as explained in this Broadcasting Cable article,  “We cite other media to a fault,” says a news director at one market-leading station. “But we don’t cite other stations.” Why is that? “TV’s too competitive,” he admits. “We never give them anything.”

The problem is, the viewer or social media interaction will quickly and easily figure out if you are not attributing. It is just too easy to stumble on. It is too easy to get caught and make headlines like the ones out of Boston.

So what should you do? Attribute. If a competing station has an enterprise story you want, you need to go after it and verify on your own. That is unless you don’t worry about long term credibility. It really is that simple. If the AP attributes a story directly, as in this case, you need to do the same. You essentially are taking AP’s word for the article, when AP itself is at the least making it seem as if it did not independently verify the information. So think about the potential risk to liability. What if the other station got it wrong? You are trusting that it’s ok. You have no verification. And you cannot pass the error off to the AP because it attributed the facts to another source.

In this digital age it is too easy to get caught copying someone else’s work. Better to be behind on the story and know you have the correct facts, than to chance it and potentially connect yourself to an erroneous story. And if the story is correct, you still look bad for “stealing it” and not crediting the original source. No winning here. Especially in the digital age where you will get caught.

Ways To Make Live Shots Safer Right Now

Know Your Newsroom, Reporting Comments Off on Ways To Make Live Shots Safer Right Now
Aug 272015

No doubt, the killings of Alison Parker and Adam Ward have really shaken up fellow TV journalists from all over. And whenever a tragedy like this happens there are calls to action.
Including two stations in Milwaukee that are not doing discretionary live shots the day after this attack. Several excellent articles have already come out asking broadcasting companies and station managers to consider using live shot delay buttons (similar to what is done in radio),
think about the dangers of one man banding  and raise the issue of live crews routinely feeling very vulnerable while on live shots. All of these are excellent points that journalists frankly should push for discussion about in their newsrooms. In the meantime “Survive” is all about very practical tips that you can do right here, right now to handle difficult situations you face each day in TV news. So let’s talk takeaways that deserve to be heard and implemented right now.

What I am hearing from TV journalists is this horrible loss hit everyone hard. And when something like this happens staff members really want one thing to happen right away: To hear from newsroom leaders that they recognize the concerns this creates, that there are provisions in place and more being discussed and that management passionately wants their crews to be safe. You can say this is a lot of hot air and we need to move forward. But simply put, at a time of crisis, staffers want to believe their leaders have their backs. So if you are a news manager reading this, it is not silly or stupid to make a few remarks. Your newsroom needs to hear it. In fact, at this point they are distressed if they haven’t heard it.

If you are an MMJ you need to think about how you select where you will be live. If you are told you have to be live, then look for a location where there are people around in case you need help. If you are covering an arrest, go from in front of the police station if you can. If the scene is active go live as close as you possibly can to where the officers are working. If the scene is about to be over and you will be standing alone in the dark, call and ask to send in a look live before the cops leave. If you have to, ask an officer or deputy if they can wait just a few more minutes to watch your back as you finish up. If they are already gone, call the department and tell them you are feeling unsafe, but have to stay, and ask if they can send an officer by. All they can do is say “No.” But sometimes they say “Yes.” We can only hope that managers will stop and think harder about the need to have MMJs going live on a regular basis. But again, we need to talk practicality here. Many of you went live the same day as the attack. Many more will go live today. Keep your eyes out, and stay within ear shot of other people. MMJ’s should play it even more safe and conservatively when going live than two or three person crews.

Managers when you think about where you are sending live crews, think about their surroundings. I have always been a proponent of cross training, this is even more true now. If you are not very familiar with the coverage area, at least take some time on your off days to drive around and explore the common areas where you send crews. Get a good idea of what they face. I understand that the story the WDBJ crew was covering was in an area considered safe, and did not have controversy around it. But crews face more than you might realize day to day. See it, so you can more easily identify solutions if a crew calls with safety concerns. Educated suggestions go a long way. Also reiterate to your crews that if they have concerns you will listen, offer suggestions and try to help in any way you can.

I hate to have to include this, but I worked in news long enough as a producer and manager that this has to be said. If you are one of those crews, that says you are nervous just to get home earlier (Yes, there are some people like this, and yes, I had to deal with some firsthand at nearly every station where I worked) you are doing your co-workers a great disservice. If you cannot handle the hours and workload, get out of TV news. Now, more than ever, a trust has to be inherent between news crews and managers back at the station. If you say you are not feeling safe, that has to be true. Be responsible. This will go a long way toward managers being able to more easily trust all their crews. Read “The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” again if you need. And managers remember, one bad apple should not ruin the crop especially if you deal with the bad apple. The vast majority of news crews come in ready to give 110 percent. If they say they feel vulnerable, the fast answer of “just deal with it” is not correct.

Can we please stop letting consultant advice take precedent over common sense in newsrooms? In this day and age viewers take live shots for granted. Many, I promise, barely notice that “Live” bug. Managers, if in your gut when assigning a crew a story you think the live environment will stink, do not assign it as live. You can still have crews in live trucks, turning their pkg in a little earlier in case a breaker happens. In fact that is the smartest thing you can do. Live shots are meant to cover breaking information. It is the fastest means to get viewers the facts. If every newsroom reiterated this definition tonight, that move alone would prevent a lot of live shot photo bombing, “f her in the…” incidents and would make it a lot harder to predict where live shots will happen. Therefore, making it harder for people with less than good intentions to find your live shot locations.

Yes, if it’s the first night of the state fair, it will make for a great live shot. Do it. But overall, many live shots in newsrooms today have no point except to slap a “Live” bug up. By just saying no to live shots in dark holes, in front of empty buildings and hours before or after an event where there is nothing to show, you are making crews less vulnerable. Remember, safety in numbers. The best live shots have action happening all around them anyway. Being live is the best/only way to get the latest information quickly to viewers when it is changing. Those should be the parameters for live shots. And MMJ’s, no live shot is worth big risk. If your gut says no way, call your manager. The beauty of digital news nowadays is there are so many ways to tell a story.

Finally, all of us need to recognize that no matter how much we try to stay safe, things like this can happen. No one could truly predict what happened in Virginia, despite what’s coming out about Vester Flanagan’s past. That’s why Alison and Adam are heroes to fellow journalists. They did their jobs all the way to the end. Adam’s dedication and ability to get the image of the shooter is something I think all journalists will carry with them. We are trained to be eyewitnesses. We will fight to bring the facts to the viewer. And now we’ve been reminded again that there are risks. May the reward continue to be greater.

Does Market Size Matter?

Honing Skills, Survival Kit Comments Off on Does Market Size Matter?
Jun 252015

One thing about TV people… they love numbers: May ratings were up .5 at 6pm in the P25-54 demo. We’re number 2 at 6am, but just .1 behind station X. Year 2 of my contract begins in 2 months and I’m getting a 3% raise. I can’t believe my co-anchor makes $3,000 more than I do (yes, news directors, everybody knows what everybody else makes… they all talk). And oh, I want to make at least a 25-market jump in my next move.

And there it is—the TV market number obsession. For people who aren’t very good at math (let’s face it… you didn’t go into TV to solve advanced engineering math problems), we sure do know those Nielsen DMA numbers pretty well! Here’s the list, by the way:

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf

Of course, everyone in TV news wants to advance their career, make more money and have more viewers see their work. But as you climb the media ladder, ask yourself this question: does market size matter? While the answer may be “yes” most of the time, you’d be surprised how many veteran broadcasting people would answer “no.” We’ll take a look at why in a minute. We’ll also look at how quickly you can move up if that’s your goal, and what’s a reasonable market jump.

First, it all depends on where you are in your career. If you’re coming right out of college into your first jobs, chances are you’re going to start in a very small market making an equally small salary. And that’s ok. Your foot is in the door. But it also depends on what job you’re looking for. Talent jobs are tougher than producing or AP jobs. We have students graduating from Penn State (disclosure: I teach here at PSU and I’m the Director of Student Television) who are quickly getting reporting or anchoring jobs in places like Elmira NY (market 175), Binghamton NY (market 159), Bangor Maine (market 156), Altoona/Johnstown PA (market 104) and Plattsburgh NY (market 98). But we also have new grads getting off-air jobs at ABC network in NYC, ESPN and Miami (market 16). There’s a huge need for producers, so if you go that route, your chances of starting in a bigger market and moving up faster are better. Bottom line is this: if your dream is to be on-air, then go be on air! It doesn’t matter where you start. You’ll only be there a year or two, you’ll gain valuable experience, learn, grow, and then move on to a bigger market. Don’t turn your back on Eureka (market 195), Twin Falls (market 192) or Bend (market 193). Those are great places to start and yes, make mistakes. You’d rather make a mistake there than in a top 50 market where it’s a LOT more visible.

How quickly can you move up to larger markets? These days, VERY quickly. Back when I started in TV 30 years ago, you did your time in a small market, then after a few years, moved up to a slightly larger market, spent a few more years there, and then moved again. That was before FOX stations added a fourth affiliate in many markets, before regional cable TV news operations and other new media outlets were around. There’s so much more opportunity now that places are always hiring, and that’s good for you.

What are good market jumps these days? You name it! Just in the past month I’ve seen reporters/anchors making moves like these: Bangor Maine (156) to Greensboro NC (46),
Elmira NY (175) to Buffalo (52), Altoona (104) to Buffalo (52) and someone in a 150+ market going to Charlotte (24). These are major moves in some cases of more than 100 markets. Just be sure if you’re making big jumps, you’re seeing the money to go along with the move. Negotiate a good deal yourself or get help from an agent to advocate for you. As you move into larger, top 20 markets, there are other benefits you should be asking for too. Those stations are big enough to help you with significant moving expenses, and if you’re an anchor, a decent clothing allowance. But above all else, make sure you’re ready for the move from an experience standpoint. You don’t want to be in over your head in a major market—the stakes are far too high for you and your boss.

Some people have resumes that show a quick and steady progression to larger markets every few years. And that’s fine—if that’s your goal, go for it. But for others, it’s not all about the market size… it’s also about lifestyle. You want to LIKE where you live and work. Detroit is market 12, but it’s not for everybody. LA is market 2 but some people have no desire to live in the crowded sprawl of Southern California. My personal path in my career is one of moving to larger markets but also places I LOVED living. I really enjoyed Providence RI (New England Summers are great), then spent years in Tampa (awesome beaches on the Gulf coast and my two kids were born there!). Sacramento was great (sunny and dry weather and hey, an hour from Napa Valley!). And Seattle was fantastic… a stunning and beautiful place. I don’t have any regrets about the places I’ve lived, because I chose wisely—good TV markets that are also good places to live.

Be sure you do the same. My best advice is that it doesn’t really matter where you start. Just get that experience on your resume and grow as a producer, reporter, anchor, director or whatever you do. Then make smart and careful choices as you move up the market ladder. Big TV markets are great—the news quality is better and you’ll make more money and have more station resources. But remember, there are bigger hassles too. More people micro-managing your work, lots more ratings and performance pressure, big city traffic and a higher cost of living. That’s why some people find a place they love and they stay there. Some of those middle markets can be great places to settle down for years. The news quality is good, you make decent money and you can live comfortably if you’re in the right job.

There are plenty of opportunities in TV and you can make bigger market jumps than ever. Just think before you jump!

Steve Kraycik is a Talent Agent with MediaStars. He has 29 years of TV news experience and spent a decade as a news director in top 20 markets. He’s also the Dir. Of Student Television at Penn State University. You can follow him on Twitter @TV_Agent_Steve.

Live For The Sake Of Being Live: A Survival Guide

Know Your Newsroom, Reporting Comments Off on Live For The Sake Of Being Live: A Survival Guide
May 072015

A savvy viewer recently asked me a very telling question. Are most of the live shots done on TV just for the sake of being live? I think most TV journalists would have to admit, yes.

First, in defense of sending the trucks out, you cannot get to that breaker at the top of the 5, if all the trucks are sitting at the station. It makes sense to put crews in trucks at the beginning of a news cycle. And if you are going to drive the truck all over town, it makes marketing sense to use the truck. Think of all the people who drive by just wondering why that news truck is there.  As for backpack journalist live shots, well we could (and likely will) dedicate another article to that.

But just because you are assigned a live shot for the day, and no breaker comes up does not mean you should just stand in front of a generic scene, and go through the motions. This is meant for both the crews who have to get creative because they are stuck with the live shot for that day, and the assigning managers who are supposed to help crews best showcase and explain the news of the day. I say this because I would be very rich if I had a dollar for every time a crew called in to say: “We don’t know what to show ( event x) is over and they are turning out the lights.” The manager’s answer was “Go live anyway, just reference that “The crowds just cleared up.” Seriously? Come on.

You have to reference the scene in some way. That might mean moving from an event to the next scene or focusing on the one area still damaged (just don’t exaggerate the extent). If there’s absolutely no way to reference where you are, then ask not to be live for an intro and tag. A live tag only can really help the crew not feel stupid and doesn’t waste the viewer’s time.

And here is another idea, why not shoot a backup intro and tag, as live, while there is something happening and offer that as an alternative option. I promise a live bug on the TV screen does not make or break viewership. Reporters demonstrating things attracts viewers. It helps the story become more relevant and the journalist become more approachable. You still got use out of the truck. You are still interactive and the reporter doesn’t look like he or she is forcing relevance at a dead scene. If the scene is absolutely a dead one, like the dreaded “stand in front of our satellite dishes and be live” assignment, think of an anchor question. At least then you can sort of justify why you are  “live” by engaging with the anchor, and providing relevant information.

And a final thought, managers please, please, please stop and think about these assignments.  Do stations really need to put live bugs up when a reporter is standing in front of their own satellite dishes on their own property? This is a classic example of live for the sake of being live. Often there’s a mandate. “We must have 5 live shots a day!” Why? What does that image really prove? Again, I make the argument, viewers would rather see an interactive standup somewhere in the piece to engage with the reporter than some person standing in front of satellite dishes. This has no marketing benefit at all. It doesn’t show that you are everywhere. It just looks sloppy. I hope this article gets stations talking more about relevance and less about live bugs in corners of screens.

The Best Job Security A Reporter Can Have

Reporting, Source Building, Survival Kit Comments Off on The Best Job Security A Reporter Can Have
Feb 222015

The best job security a reporter can have comes down to one word. Sources. Time and time again I hear about the “untouchable” reporter in a newsroom who can’t ad lib, can’t write, can’t dress, can’t get along with people, yet cannot be fired. The reason, sources. The reporter has so many contacts and so many ways to get relevant information on a dime, that they away with murder day-to-day.

Now, if you are the person with the great sources, hear this: I am NOT suggesting that you act like a jerk in the newsroom. Even the most “untouchable” person can go too far and pay a hefty price. But if you love where you live and want to stay for the long haul, do not underestimate the power of a strong source list.

Simply put, too many people think their looks or on-air abilities are enough to keep them around. These traits are easier to find in the biz, than a die hard reporter with a true pulse of what’s happening in the community and who’s behind the power struggles, conflicts and movements. Your looks can fade or a station can change it’s mind about on-air presentation styles. No matter what, all stations and all news philosophies in all markets need journalists who can call on a hunch, turn a lead story and do it consistently.

So next time you think you are too tired to make that follow-up call, or reach out on a new lead for a potential source, remember, giving that extra effort could make you an invaluable resource. It is worth it. (If you don’t know how to source build check out Cultivating Sources and How to Generate Story Ideas.)

Story Sources: Beware of the Badge?

Know Your Newsroom, Reporting Comments Off on Story Sources: Beware of the Badge?
Jan 222015

Let’s be honest—if you’re a TV reporter, you probably end up assigned to more crime stories than you can count over the course of a year! A murder here, a robbery there, another missing person, oh and don’t forget the occasional 12-hour standoff.

Reporters cover a lot of crime and because of that, they get to know the police public information officers pretty well. PIOs are an important link between the crime scene and your TV viewers. After all, they usually know many more details about the incident than you do as a reporter. They talk with the detectives on-scene, they’re briefed by the brass, and it’s their job to be a link between the department and the public. Many of them do a fantastic job. In my last TV market, a couple of the PIOs were excellent communicators and savvy with social media—they’d tweet basic details on breaking news and direct TV crews to a staging area where they’d meet reporters. That’s good stuff.

It’s a tough job, actually. Many PIOs are on-call 24/7, so when a murder happens on a weekend or a skier goes missing on New Year’s Day, they’re taking calls from reporters or setting up a news conference. They’re under a lot of pressure from YOU the reporter to provide as much information as possible, while at the same time not releasing any details that might jeopardize an investigation. It can be quite the balancing act.

The bottom line is, in many cases, you need good PIOs to give you information for your story. They’re front-line, typically credible sources. But here’s something to consider… something more young journalists seem to have trouble understanding: it’s important to not count on PIOs as your only sources. Never forget who the PIO is working for—and it’s not you. They’re representing their law enforcement agency and, when push comes to shove, protecting their agency. If they think it’s best for a particular case or investigation, police may obviously withhold certain facts they don’t want the public to know. They may even provide false information or ask you to hold a piece of info if they believe it’ll help flush out a suspect.

I’ve known reporters, producers and assignment editors who had very close working relationships with PIOs. They talked with them every day as they did “beat checks.” Over time, some even became friends on a personal level. That can lead to good information or an occasional exclusive story. But you need to keep your guard up. You need to be careful you’re not crossing the line. And certain PIOs can be manipulative and even lead reporters down the wrong path if it means protecting an investigation. There can be other issues that aren’t as ominous, but can bite you anyway. For example, what if the PIO mistakenly gives you bad info? Now you’re going on the air with a fact error.
Treat PIOs as you would other sources—with caution. Truth is you need them to provide detail for your stories. And they need you to distribute certain info to the public. But whenever you can, don’t use a PIO as your only source. Work hard and track down others who may be able to add context and detail—what do the neighbors have to say? How about the suspect or victim’s employer? Check court and police records for yourself to see what someone’s criminal background is. Find out what witnesses have to say, if you can find them. And when you can, talk with a detective or deputy directly. It’s always best to get information form the most direct source, rather than the public mouthpiece of the department.

PIOs can and will continue to be a key contact for reporters. They can save your newscast when breaking news happens late and you need a nugget of info to get a lead story on the air. They can also help you on and off the record. But always remember they may have their own agenda. There are potentially other credible and legitimate sources on any given story, so don’t just call you favorite PIO and call it a day. Do the extra work and make your story that much better.

————————————————————————————————————-

Steve Kraycik is the Director of Student Television and Online Operations at Penn State University. He has more than 27 years of experience in television news, much of that as a manager. He also is an agent with MediaStars. You can reach him at steve@mediastars.tv and @TV_Agent_Steve.

Bad Behavior has blocked 565 access attempts in the last 7 days.