admin – Page 13 – Survive Your Job In Television News

ON PERMANENT RECORD: Social Media Survival Guide

In the last few weeks there has been what seems an unusually high number of social media gaffes by journalists. Survive has focused a lot of attention on trying to help journalists avoid this public and frankly permanent record of embarrassment. It appears it is time for another round of discussion about this. So let’s dive in to the recurring pitfalls that make journalists look bad on social media, and ways to avoid them.

Top Danger Zones

Selfie backgrounds and tone
Opinions
Responding to attacks
Teasing a story

The biggest potential pitfall without a doubt, is the background of a selfie and your tone describing it. Look, I get it. Selfies are the way to show where you are and what you are doing. And, yes, a lot of people just love seeing them. I understand that they are an important and effective way to communicate. In and of itself, the concept of a selfie is great. But not when you end up smiling at murder scenes, fatal accidents and just after weather events. The key here is to literally take a step back, and think about your background image. Even if a viewer cannot see the burning house, the crime tape or the tornado damage, the time of day and location of your selfie will out you. We have to remember as journalists that although reporters and anchors are instrumental in telling stories, viewers tune in for the facts and relatable information in the story even more. It is the simple truth. That includes your social media page. They follow you because they like how you share information with them. You and information. Not just you. You are still a stranger. Someone they like to spy on in a way, and seethings vicariously through.. but still a stranger. So you cannot expect the viewer to know your intention by sending a selfie out from a crime scene. And while we are at it headed to a crime scene, murder trial or fire. You come across as harsh, insensitive and frankly narcissistic. I do believe many journalists making these mistakes have good intentions. They want to show they are on a story and think of selfies because they are a natural part of everyday interactions with fans and friends. I think these journalists are often trying to show that they are on a big story and are eager to bring viewers all the information they can. A camera means smile, so they smile out of habit. But remember, viewers do not routinely “hang out” at crime scenes. Many live in gripping fear of large, destructive, weather events. Viewers follow you for information. Selfies for journalists, should not happen on the scene or headed to or from the scene of a story that is serious and/or tragic in nature. It really is that simple. When taking a selfie, stop to consider where you are or are headed to first. If it is serious in nature stick to images of the scene. Keep your selfie out of it.

Lets get more into the idea of the tone of your message. Remember, viewers follow your social media accounts in order to gain information. So, every time you express an opinion, you could be stepping into another dangerous pitfall. FTVLive recently exposed two cases of tweets that came across as very insensitive. A journalist excited at the possibility of covering her first hurricane, and another journalist calling out a “beggar” who seems to always be in the same area looking for a handout.

Both of these tweets express opinions. I am guessing both merely wanted to get a conversation going and hoped to be relatable to followers on Twitter. The problem is, opinions are a very slippery slope. Especially for journalists who are supposed to be objective in their professional lives. Even commenting on sports can be tricky, if you happen to root for a main rival team from the city/state where you work. Seriously. It can cause a backlash. An ND recently told me about a weekend anchor who said he hoped a rival team wins next week against the state team in a huge SEC football town. He got so many complaints about that anchor’s comments he debated firing the anchor to “keep the peace.” You can talk to your friends and family about your opinions regarding news stories and issues. But don’t plaster them all over social media. Opinions like “I had a great run today.” and “I love drinking coffee.” are fine. Those sorts of comments will likely not create a heated response. But bottom line, social media is full of people who like to start fights. And journalists are a great target especially if they share opinions on things they are supposed to be objective about.

This leads to the third common pitfall, responding to critics. We have addressed this issue before, but it deserves going over again. There are many wonderful people on social media. There also are a lot of trouble makers who want to incite public figures. On-air talent: On social media, because of your job, you are a public figure. Producers: You are too in many ways. You can be a target for people with an axe to grind against your station, your community or people who they deem to have public influence. Recently a meteorologist in DC shot back at someone on Twitter. He took heat for it too. Another meteorologist in Orlando recently blogged how hard it can be to deal with bullies.

To summarize, in simple terms, think of this analogy: It’s rarely the person who throws the first punch who gets caught and punished. It’s normally the second person. As maddening as it is, you have to take the higher ground. Period. If the bully is exceptionally nasty, let management know. Your safety is critical. These attacks, while totally uncalled for, can do you more harm if you respond with an attack, than if you ignore them. These bullies just do not deserve to get the best of you.
And now the last danger zone. Teases. Remember that half the burden is gone for you on social media. You are not begging viewers to stay. They are actively seeking you out. Lately there have been several incidents where the “tease writer” on the social media account showed a scene from the station, and it looked insensitive. I think part of the problem is social media writers are given mandates and try and force a square peg into a round hole. Yes, it can be very good to show “behind the scenes” crews working for you images. But again, think tone. This simple rule can once again help you avoid gaffes. If the story is serious in nature, leave the journalists image out of it. Focus on the scene. Focus on the impact, not the instrument providing the information. Also, a quick reminder. You do not have to make a story relatable by comparing it to a hit show or attempting to be witty. The characters and reason you are covering the story should be enough of a draw.

News organizations are trying to come up with basic guidelines, as a result of so many blunders on social media. The biggest battle all agree is the common thinking it’s only Twitter. Or it’s only Facebook. But unlike TV where we old timers like to say, “now it’s out in the universe” after a show airs, social media is permanent. There are ways to find even the comments you delete. Once you put a Tweet or FB or Instagram post out there, it is always out there for better or worse. It is crucial to understand the comments can and will haunt. As we mentioned before your Twitter account says a lot about you. You have to make sure it is a good message your parents, minister, rabbi and boss would want to be aligned with. Not just read, but be connected to permanently. So look for these common pitfalls and don’t fall for them. Your reputation is too important.

What happened to verbs?

I have been emailing back and forth with a former TV journalist, who noticed a trend. I am guessing you will notice the same trend once I bring it up here. Verbs have largely disappeared from news copy. Now, I know many of you will dog me for this and go off on conversational writing. “People speak in phrases.” But do they really? And do they as often as you hear it in news copy?

I am going to make the argument that leaving out key verbs is not done to make copy conversational. It happens for two other reasons more often:

1) To avoid using past or passive tense
2) Because you cannot answer a key part of the fact being presented and are doing a work around.

We delved pretty heavily into the first reason, avoiding using past tense in an article on faking the present.

Some examples sent by this former journalist include: “Today investigators trying to piece together what happened.” and “Hurricane Bob approaching the coast tonight.” Both of these are avoiding “to be.” The reason likely is that the information is not new. The other reason, is to avoid passive tense. We delve into how to get around that in our ultimate writing challenge.

But one thing we haven’t delved into quite as much is the whole, I don’t really know the facts issue. Sadly, this is all too common, especially because journalists are facing huge increases in workload, with little to no support. The former journalist I have been emailing with mentioned that “the most challenging part of writing in active tense was knowing who or what was the “subject” of a subject-verb-object sentence should be. If, for example, a writer knows that a person was accused of something but the writer does not know (and is perhaps too time-pressed or lazy to find out) who did the accusing, writing in active tense is difficult.” So true! And as a journalist who was asked to crank out insane amounts of copy with little to no help, repeatedly, I cannot completely fault writers for this. I understand the “Too time pressed” argument. Leaving these elements out of the story until you get them cleared up isn’t always possible. But there can be a couple of work arounds to help you in this time of fact checking need. Have an assignment editor or manager you trust read over that particular story and ask what they can do to help you fix that fact. Have an anchor do the same. And then tell your EP that the following stories could be written stronger but you don’t have all the facts you need. Yes, share the pain and burden with others. If they blow it off and the copy stays passive, you did all you could. If they just take out the “is”-“ing” combo and dump a verb, at least it wasn’t you. You tried to get all the facts. But keep asking. Hopefully at some point the assignment manager and/or EP will start to see that there is a hole in the system. Too much is getting by with too little information being confirmed. Then, who knows, you might get more support.

Do I think that I will hear more verbs soon? No. The trend is likely here to stay. But I do think that many journalists really want to write things concisely, clearly and knowing they have all the facts. That is why I have to challenge you to demand more. Pick one or two stories a day you call on, to clear up the confusion. It will make you a better writer, better journalist and give you a sense of accomplishment that sometimes is lacking in the daily grind. You cannot fact check all the stories as a producer. There’s not enough time. But you can and should point out the ones you feel could be stronger. After all, your goal is to provide the most information the best way possible. The anchors deserve that. They want to be the most able to explain the information. The newsroom deserves that. It will be noticed for its ability to clearly explain stories the other stations “cheat” on. Most of all, the viewers deserve that. They count on you to have the facts. They make or break your success, so spoil them rotten. Give them more sentences with verbs, in active voice! Don’t take the easy way. Do it the right way. Everyone wins.

Is That Really Breaking?

With another sweeps period ending, this is a good time to talk about branding coverage with the all too often touted claim of “Breaking News.”

This term is used so loosely industry wide that it is a common brunt of jokes. Even if you think the jokes are funny, there’s a lesson behind the laughs. The phrase “breaking” is losing its meaning. Stations are showcasing with bold graphics, strong phrasing and 16 boxes in which they are happy to manipulate time in order to fit the station brand. Harsh? Not when numbers of viewers continue to decline. Making everything “Breaking News” is one of the reasons viewers are looking away.

Consider this, “Breaking” has a new call to action for viewers now. For arguments’ sake, just think about when you hear there is breaking news. My guess is you the journalist, immediately hop on Twitter to see what people are saying about the story. Then you do a Google search. Guess what? Viewers do the same. And I am going to argue that TV stations using the term “Breaking” now just encourage viewers to check and potentially call your bluff. The natural reaction is to want to know all you can about the story happening right now and hopefully be the first to learn something you can share with others. This is not just a journalist’s desire. Viewers do the same. That is basic human instinct.

So if you want to look slick off the top and throw in the breaking news animation and supers package, but the story really happened an hour or two ago, your viewer will figure it out within the first paragraph of coverage. Busted! Then you potentially look behind the 8 ball. Why is station (call letters here) just now covering this story? Did they miss it when it started? What else did they miss today? Welcome to what viewers say. Or this: Here goes station (call letters here) calling a story “Breaking” when it’s not. What else do they exaggerate about to try and trick me into watching?

Viewers are not as gullible as you might want to think. Especially in this day where everything you want to know is a Siri question or few taps away. Show the respect of calling something breaking only when it truly just started happening. Old timers had an hour or less rule. I think you can get away with that if the standoff is still underway. But if the manhunt is over, the person shot is at the hospital and the scene is being cleared, then no, it’s probably not breaking news.

If you have “breaking developments” they better not be something you saved for the TV part of the three screen equation all day. Again, chances are high you will be outed as fudging the timeline.

For those of you who are shaking your heads saying “We’ve called everything breaking for years, our numbers are solid and we love our slogan” here’s one last thing to consider: “Breaking news” is quickly becoming less crucial to gain viewers. Three screen news gathering means an event that just started is likely going to be seen “live” through social media first. Now TV stations need to focus more on “Breaking” great additional details and separating fact from fiction in these fluid situations. That is where your expertise can be counted on. And, if you lie and tell viewers everything is happening right that second when it’s not, you are no longer an expert, just another person with a camera, and an outlet to share.

What if TV stations got bold, and stepped away from the time crutch associated with “Breaking News.” What if instead they focused on what journalists do best, sort out the truth and explain it easily, so everyone can understand what is happening. Talk about a powerful brand. Talk about “breaking” information. Redefining the term breaking news in a clear way could reenergize TV news. Instead of defining that type of news by timeliness of an event, focus on exclusivity of details. Then those tried and true “Live Local Late Breaking”, “Your Breaking News Station” and even “Where the News Comes First” slogans are legit credible assets to your station. Not the brunt of jokes. Dump the timeline references. Use breaking news they way the old timer’s did. New crucial information about an event. New information. Not a right now event. Then watch the viewers check Twitter, and head to your websites and newscasts in droves. They know the story is happening now, but what’s the truth in it? What news really “broke?” You’ll have the clear answers.

Live For The Sake Of Being Live: A Survival Guide

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.