admin – Page 41 – Survive Your Job In Television News

Is bigger better? The truth about market sizes

I get a lot of tweets about what it takes to get into larger markets. That’s always the goal right? The bigger you go, the better the money and the easier the job because you will have experienced co-workers around you. You have to aim high. Or do you?

When I graduated college, I quickly had an opportunity in a good station in what was market 28 at the time. I was intimidated but a professor of mine said, “Newsrooms are all the same, just go for it.” Guess what? They are not all the same. I have worked in small, mid and large markets. Small markets have a high novice factor usually. Large markets have some novices, incredible rising stars, people burning out and veterans enjoying the professional success they have. There is definitely more of a cut throat feeling (at least in my experience) in large markets. However, I learned the most from them because of that diversity of people.

Mid markets are often little gems many people overlook. Nowadays many mid markets pay more than large markets. Yes. You read that correctly. The mid markets appreciate their talent and try to encourage them to stay, so the newsrooms are often more stable. Small markets know they are largely revolving doors, training grounds for reporters and producers. Large markets know everyone wants to come work there. Competition is fierce getting there, and doesn’t let up once you arrive. It can be thrilling, until you want to settle down and have a family. Mid markets realize this and tend to offer very talented journalists nice contracts and more stability. You get to live in a place that’s great for raising kids and you get respect for who you are as a journalist. That can be harder to come by in small and large markets, though not impossible.

So when considering a market, focus less on the ADI size and more on whether the place will fit well with your lifestyle and, if applicable, whether it’s a good place to raise children. You may end up a lot happier that way.

What are Nielsen diaries really like?

This week, I emailed back and forth with Bob Sellers (@TV_Agent_Bob on Twitter) with Media Stars. He shared a link to an excellent article he wrote for the Huffington Post about being a Nielsen family. It really explains what families are asked to do, when keeping a diary and some imperfections that can cost shows ratings. As I read the article I was fascinated with all the scenarios that lead to some shows not getting mentioned (even though they were watched) in a diary and why. Sellers also discussed changing formats in order to gain audience when people typically change the channel. Producers, read that article for that section. Great food for thought when tweeking your own rundown.

The article also made me think about the time I went to a Nielsen office. I actually got to thumb through diaries about a newscast for which I was supposed to raise the ratings. I went with several other news managers, a promotions manager and the producer of the show. It was humbling and scary. The incredible amount of misspellings and grammatical errors were unnerving when you thought of all the hard work and agonizing hours to get people to watch the newscasts. Then I noticed several mentions of my station’s anchors, by first and last name, listed under the wrong station call letters! When we quizzed a Nielsen employee about this we were told the call letters were what got credit. It was devastating and maddening. We already felt like we made the anchors and reporters say the station’s name too often on the air. It sounded robotic. But still, so many diaries had the station channel number or call letters wrong.

Most fascinating for me though, was reading the notes about why people watched what they did. That’s the section I was in charge of concentrating on. These diaries were supposed to give me insight into what the viewers liked and wanted more of from our newscasts. So many of the answers were so strange, that I feared I would not see any tangible solutions to raise our ratings. For example, one diary mentioned the person loved when anchors wore a specific color. That was the determining factor for watching a newscast on a given day. After a lot of reading, I was able to glean some useful information. Some diaries mentioned there was nothing worth watching after 10 minutes into the newscasts, or wished weather came on at a different time. These elements did help us make some changes.

The biggest take away for the group of us was how casual the viewer seemed about the one thing we spent all our waking moments focusing on: the actual news. If they saw a newscast great, if they didn’t that was o.k. also. Time and again we read comments to the effect of: “I watch news three times a week because there’s so little new that happens.” Makes you think a little more about those follow up filler vo’s doesn’t it? How about the “throwaway” last 10 minutes of an 11pm newscast? You know the block where we’re told the ratings “don’t matter.” Well, maybe they do matter, even if viewers sometimes cannot spell or get your station call letters right. Those same people can control your destiny. I got a big introduction to how those decisions are made that day. Don’t underestimate how fickle your audience really is. Make sure that your newscast truly stands out and is memorable. Oh, and don’t forget the call letters!

Do you overwrite?

I was adding to the cliché list the other day when it hit me, so much of TV news writing is so staid, so predictable. Frankly, it’s tired and cliché. Why? In So Cliché! How to avoid overused phrases, I listed some reasons why we use these phrases when writing news stories. But there’s even more to it.

Recently I tweeted this question: What shows do you watch to get inspiration for your writing? I got the typical answers: NBC Nightly News and the FOX Report with Shepard Smith. Notice, in the question posed, I used the word, shows not newscasts. What else do you watch?

Two shows that have influenced my writing greatly are “West Wing” and “Mad Men.” Yes, fiction. Why? Because these programs really revolve around conversations. They are not fast paced action thrillers by any stretch. The words are understated, yet profound. You feel a relationship building with the characters. They become real to you. Still, we don’t really know any of these characters completely. Sometimes, hours later, a part of the conversation you watched really hits you. You have an “Aha!” moment. You can’t stop thinking about how the exchange between the characters went in a given episode. When it comes down to it, television news is a conversation between the anchors, reporters and the viewer. That conversation should also have some intimacy. We should not have to beat the viewer over the head with overstated lines. The viewer wants to hear what we have to say. They are taking time out of their busy days to learn from you. We forget to honor that sometimes. Heck, with so much talk about ratings, we forget viewers come to us. We don’t have to hunt them down. We just have to give them something appealing, and they come to us. Then, hours later, they call friends and tell them about the thing they saw or learned that haunted them. Word of mouth is still the best advertising.

Two great authors, and former journalists can also give you an idea of the power of understated writing: Rick Bragg and Malcolm Gladwell. They have different writing styles than you use when slamming out a vo. But look at how they explain interesting ideas with simple and very conversational writing. When you read their books you feel like you are sitting down and talking with them. Both write non-fiction. You feel an intimacy. Techniques they use are very translatable to TV news writing. For example: They ask questions. You will see Malcolm Gladwell set up a scenario in a sentence or two, then simply write, “Why is this?” Then he lets the situation play out. You can use that technique in cold opens, intros to reporter packages and even teases. The viewer becomes engaged, starts thinking through the situation for him or herself and feels a connection. Rick Bragg is brilliant at showcasing irony. Irony is a crux of storytelling (read Storytelling on a dime). Both are masters at describing conversations they have had. The way they let those conversations play out, can be used when writing packages. The biggest thing they do, is let people speak for themselves. Too often we cut off sound bites just as the viewer is being hooked. The viewer doesn’t get a chance to connect with the characters in our stories. These authors understand how to give you just enough from a character that you have to stop and think about this person. Again, it’s intimacy.

A final thought, neither the shows listed above, nor the authors I mention use long sentences. The writing is very simple and direct. It’s similar to what’s spelled out in the article Short and sweet, the 7 words in a sentence rule. Every word should count in some way. When you talk with someone about an important issue, you choose your words carefully. You look for connections. Writing for TV news is no different. So try and keep it simple. Overwriting does no good.

Deadline looming: How to effectively crank out multiple stories.

The idea of cranking out more with less doesn’t seem to be going away. Turning more than one story, on more than one subject, in more than one city is not easy. Just keeping the facts straight and providing perspective on multiple stories is challenging. Then come the relentless deadlines. Sometimes the packages air 10 minutes or less apart. One of them, includes a live hit. Wow, just writing about all that leaves me breathless!

So how do you effectively crank out multiple stories? Veteran reporters who make these pressures seem like turning a straight vo/sot, say two things: Organization and time management. So what does that mean?

Think about how you will write the package, while shooting
Keep interviews no longer than 5 minutes MAX
Log accurate time codes
Log and/or write every free minute

First off, think about how you will write your package while you are shooting it. You want the first part of your package mapped out in your head for two key reasons. First, it will help you craft a bridge standup that will always fit. Next, it means you must do enough research before interviewing that you can keep those interviews to 5 minutes maximum. (You really should try to keep them to about three minutes.) The reason: the longer your interviews the more you have to log. (For more on how to keep interviews short read: Developing interview skills on the beat)

Speaking of logging, your time codes need to be accurate. This is not a courtesy to your photojournalist, this is crucial to make deadline. It needs to be considered as big a deal as getting your facts straight. When slamming on deadline, you need to make sure your photojournalist or editor uses exactly what you need, and can easily find it, without having to stop down and ask you.

Finally, every free minute you have should be spent logging and writing. This means using the view finder of the camera to log if necessary. I constantly had to battle this idea with reporters. I’ll log when we get to the live shot location, etc. Not acceptable! Log while you are in the car riding. Log your first story immediately, while driving to your second story. Log while you are eating lunch, if you get one. Do not waste a single minute. You want to get done quickly so you and your photojournalist can take your time when editing. You want to factor in time for equipment failure too. You will still get down time, it will just be at the end of your day.