Know Your Newsroom – Page 15 – Survive Your Job In Television News

Dress for Success: Your clothes define your credibility

Hey, it’s no secret, part of the fun of being a TV reporter or anchor is the great clothing you get to wear. It is fun to dress the part! But nowadays many outfits worn on air send the wrong message.

Before you start griping at me with “Hey the world is getting more casual, so should we!” hear me out. What you wear really defines you as a person and a journalist. For cold hard proof, I suggest you follow agent Micah Johnson from MediaStars on Twitter (@TV_Agent). He often throws in fashion tidbits. Recently, he tweeted about EMMY judging and had journalists debating fashion for two days. I talked with Micah about the fashion faux pas he sees on demo tapes and the dangerous consequences for your career.

Micah’s first point: Credibility. Think about the people you meet. You judge those people based on appearance. People are visual and therefore make decisions visually. Micah says, “Your wardrobe defines you, period.” So when you are putting together your demo, remember your clothing describes, “Who you are, who you perceive yourself to be and who you hope to be.” A case in point is Micah’s Twitter image. He wears a suit in it. Imagine if that picture had him in cut off blue jeans and a Hawaiian shirt. Would that make you think he could place people on the major market or network level? The same goes for you when you are on the air. Your appearance adds to your credibility in both doing your daily job and when you are job searching.

Your demo helps you showcase who you are and who you can appeal to. Think about that for a moment. Your ND’s and GM’s probably urge you to appeal to the key demos. That’s not just 25-35. The people watching the news that can afford to buy the products in the, oh so crucial, local spots are probably 40 plus. Is that sleeveless sundress you are wearing appealing to that age set? This audience is not impressed with casual dress. Even if they are starting to come to work in more polo’s and khaki’s themselves.

So what do those viewers like to see? What types of outfits make you look like a star that’s going places and too good to pass up? Micah says women should always wear bright colors and pastels. Royal purple, reds, and deep blues are vibrant and attractive to viewers. They are power colors. Remember many news sets are dark. If you wear a dark suit, you then look like a floating head. Not attractive or powerful.

We didn’t forget men. The key for you is tailored. That doesn’t mean you have to buy an expensive suit. It does mean you need to spend money getting that suit tailored to fit you. Another key, if you anchor, have the coat fitted for tailoring while sitting down. That’s how the suit will be worn most of the time. Also remember the trick William Hurt showed us during the classic TV news movie, “Broadcast News.” Sit on your coat tails for a great looking fit while on set. “That’s not just Hollywood trivia, there’s truth in that tidbit,” Micah says. What about reporters hoofing it out in the summer heat? Micah says suck it up and wear the dress shirt. His advice: A trick police officers use to stay dry when wearing their very hot uniforms and/or bullet proof vests: Baby powder and an under shirt. When you get out of the shower in the morning, put on baby powder, then a cotton under shirt, then your dress shirt. The baby powder helps wick away the sweat. Then the undershirt absorbs any sweat that makes it through the powder. It may be a little warmer than normal, but it won’t show and you’ll look the part of a professional, credible broadcaster.

Speaking of suits, when asked about fashion, plenty of women mention they hate blazers, and like wearing dresses. My favorite FB comment says suits are “so 1995.” Micah says don’t blow off suits as old school. The key is getting the tailored look, and blazers are a great way to do this. Like with men, you don’t have to buy top designers (heck most of us can’t afford it!). But you do spend money having your clothing tailored so they fit your figure. Again, if you anchor, have the fitting done while sitting down. As for sleeveless, Micah says avoid it unless you have arms like Angelina Jolie, back when she played Lara Croft in “Tomb Raider.” Remember, you want the people watching your demo to see you, not just stare at your arm flab.

His final suggestions, avoid big earrings, big necklaces and bright red lipstick. Yes, they are in the fashion magazines. But, you are not going out clubbing. You are delivering important information and actually want people to see and listen to you, not stare at your gigantic jewelry or eye popping lips. Credibility just does not mix with these things.

Still having doubts and don’t like being told what to wear? Ask yourself a key question: Am I a kick ass journalist going places? If the answer is no, then blow off this advice. But if you want to make something of yourself, remember dressing sloppy makes you look like you don’t know what you are doing, or what you want to accomplish. Dressing well, makes you look like a star!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Thanks to Micah Johnson, with MediaStars. Check him out on Twitter @TV_Agent for all kinds of juicy morsels about TV news.

Faking the present: When what’s happening now, really isn’t

A morning producer recently posed this question: What do you do with the phrase “police are looking” from the previous night’s copy? Do you keep the phrase present tense? Immediately other morning producers jumped in stating you need to write present tense. No question TV news is designed for the here and now. But let’s get realistic for a moment. In early morning and late evening newscasts, the expectation that all the news is here and now is not possible for multiple hour shows. The biggest offenders perpetuating this idea that everything is all new and all happening right now are Newsies. Too often during morning and late evening newscasts, I hear “false present” tense. The anchors always look uncomfortable reading this “faked” tense because it is not natural. Viewers get that everything you tell them is not happening right that minute. They just want you stop pretending it is. Harsh? Not when you spend time with non-newsies. If I had a dollar for every time I was asked “Why do you news people have to act like something is happening right then when it’s not?” well, I would not be writing this article. I would be sipping Mai Tai’s on a tropical beach, fulltime!

So what’s the work around? First, let’s look more at false present. Popular examples, “the President authorizes a bill”, when showing video of him signing it the day before or “the Olympics start in London” when they actually started the day before. Just because the video shows the signing or opening ceremony doesn’t mean it’s happening at that moment. Viewers know when events like that happened. This is also called headline speak and it is frustrating to hear and read. So why is it drilled into TV journalists to write in present tense and only in present tense? Because that is an easy way to try and force you into sticking to what’s new in a given story. Yes, if you are putting a story in your newscast there should be a new element that you can explain in the first sentence. Yes, use present tense if you possibly can. But remember, viewers do not watch every day and they do not watch every newscast. You must include enough “background” so they have a clue what you are talking about. Use past tense when providing the background, when appropriate. This is especially true if the story is a follow up from the day or week or month before. Often, I hear headline speak in these type of follow ups as well. Journalists leave out the verb in these “follow up” sentences. You get weird, title like, descriptions such as “the July 9^th shooting”… or “the mill fire.“ Unnatural and uncomfortable.

Now let’s look at the phrase the producer brought up: “Police are looking.” Unless there’s been a mass murder or a police officer was shot, odds are police are not actually out physically searching for the people responsible at 4:30 a.m. You can keep this present tense if what police were looking for is still relevant later that night or the next morning (i.e.- they really are still on the street actively looking). Write it this way instead: “Police hope to find…” or “Police want to find…“ That would still be true and you are not emphasizing an act that isn’t really happening at the time of your newscast. There’s also nothing wrong with showing video of the search and saying “Police looked for 3 hours, with no luck yesterday. They hope for more leads today.”

The big takeaway here is that every sentence in your copy does not have to be present tense. Conversational writing changes tenses naturally. When you tell someone a story, you provide background information for context. I guarantee when you do, you use past tense, because that’s when the background information happened. The “write present tense rule” doesn’t mean deny past tense completely, no exceptions. It is a generalization. Remember the reason behind it. Focus on new. If you do, while still providing context for the stories, you will legitimately focus on the present, while not denying the past.

How to avoid losing grip, when covering a seemingly unexplainable story

No doubt, the shootings at the Colorado movie theater, is the kind of story that haunts us journalists. I can tell you, no matter how much you cover stories like these, the emotion you feel remains the same: Raw. It is impossible not to feel an intense emotional reaction. But how those gut feelings sway our coverage decisions is crucial.

We must make time to stop and think. We need to take a hard look at how we are determining our coverage philosophy.

Right when I learned of the shooting, I started re-tweeting interesting issues that were coming out about covering this type of story. I soon stopped myself because it was obvious to me that many journalists were on edge. The story was getting to everyone. How could it not? That was not the time to talk about why we journalists were defaulting to police speak and immediately discussing whether metal detectors need to go into movie theaters now.

I am not going to go into whether angles like theater security, potential causes for this kind of shooting, and whether installing metal detectors in movie theaters should have been brought up the morning of the shootings. Al Tompkins of Poynter summed that up beautifully.

What I am going to ask you to consider is why we “go there” with these angles, so we can look at how not to “lose grip” on the impact. Let’s begin with deferring to “police speak” as coverage begins for these types of events. It is natural to go into CYA mode and fear deviating from the exact language the “authorities” use, in order to prevent possibly misinterpreting what they say. I also think journalists defer to this type of language to set up a sort of emotional barrier between us and the story we are covering. By writing in a very conversational way, it is only human to really feel the impact of the story. By deferring to police speak we are setting up a sort of emotional detachment from the reality we are struggling to grasp ourselves. As difficult as these stories are, and as hectic as the pace is in covering them, you must take even a few seconds to let yourself feel the range of emotions. You need to allow yourself to see them, so you can then move forward with your job. When headed to the booth in these situations I often stopped and took a series of breaths before walking into the control room. I needed to recognize this hurts like hell to think about, and we have an obligation to respect that for everyone who will hear it.

When it comes to worrying whether you misinterpret information, ask questions to be clear. So often we become obsessed with being first and rationalize stilted language and possible errors by saying “Its breaking news, viewers understand.” They don’t completely. They expect you to ask questions. Defaulting to police speak does not make you seem more credible or show that you “checked the info out” before reporting. It is a tell-tale sign to viewers that you are uncomfortable with the information you are reporting. Instead, use attribution. That way as information changes, viewers can see how the information has changed, and who changed it, more clearly.

I also am going to encourage you to talk openly, with the viewers, about how the newsroom is gathering information, as you gather it. So often while doing continuous coverage, anchors are filling time, until new information comes in. This can be an incredible opportunity to let viewers “see the process.” Have a reporter or EP stand by the assignment desk and explain that the newsroom is monitoring Twitter, the networks, local feeds, scanners etc. Explain that you like to get two sources saying the same thing before you go with it (if that’s your station policy of course). Take a live “picture only” of your field crews walking around talking to people. This will make you less nervous about also asking the information gatherers questions. In fact, ask viewers to tweet or email questions about the story that you can try and answer as well. Interact. Don’t guess what they want to know in this type of situation, ask them. You might get an incredible angle this way.

The term “go big or go home” should not mean forcing angles in so that you can be “first” on the next development. Own the here and now. Too often we skip past the part of stories like this that viewers are trying to understand most. In Produce it up I talked about weaving in perspective throughout the earthquake coverage in Japan. Specifically, how to showcase elements that helped the viewer see the scope of what happened. We forget the crucial need for perspective because we are working at a whirlwind pace, not stopping to really absorb what happened. Remember, viewers can get the basic facts. They need us to connect them together in a clear way for some understanding.

We often forget the role of reporter and anchor to the viewer, especially in these situations. Anchors are the viewers’ advocates. Anchors ask the questions the viewer’s cannot. Reporters are the eyewitnesses. If you focus on these roles when designing continuing coverage and the angles that follow, you have a tremendous opportunity to enhance your relationship with the viewer. Too often approaches to continuous coverage over emphasize “new” instead of explaining what’s there, right now. Remembering these roles will also help you avoid “police speak” because it demands you ask questions throughout the news gathering process. As eyewitnesses, reporters do not have to know all the answers right away. The anchor can ask a question and the reporter can explain how he/she is going about getting that information. It shows that the team is trying to give viewers what they need to understand the event. It also naturally helps producers avoid exaggerating the facts with “sexy sells.” You are “selling” your team’s credibility.

Finally, as you sit in editorial meetings and are told “viewers want more of this, what angle can we do?” do not misinterpret “finding blame” for “advocacy.” We journalists often do this. Ask if you are exaggerating the situation with the ideas you bounce around. I mean actually ask, out loud. Often people are in that editorial meeting thinking it, but afraid to say so. Take the time to talk it through. Slow the whirlwind pace just a little bit. If not you will play on the fear factor, possibly too much. In terms of the shooting at the movie theater in Colorado, I shuddered in the morning thinking, “The first angle will be theater security.” Sure enough, a journalist tweeted the question “should there be metal detectors in movie theaters,” six hours into the coverage and as half of America was waking up hearing this for the first time (this reporter was on east coast as well). Three hours later I saw a reporter tweet, touting an exclusive on how easily he was able to sneak into a movie theater unnoticed. Honestly this is a stereotypical “fear” angle to go for. Why do we journalists do this? Again, we confuse advocacy with blaming someone. We figure viewers are saying “Why isn’t someone protecting us?” We decide we must answer. After all, these feelings are human. But you must look “big picture” for the WIFM. What impact will this shooting have on people, today, tomorrow and next year? This requires providing proper perspective. Does the sneaking into a movie theater or using a metal detector angle accurately portray reality as we know it? How often do viewer’s walk through a metal detector in their daily lives? Should there now be metal detectors every public place we go? Think about that when you go to the grocery store in the next few days. Shootings have happened at grocery stores too. Sometimes there is no clear blame to be laid except on the person who did the shooting. Viewers know that better than we do sometimes. Do they expect us to hold people accountable, or help them see how people are reacting to this happening? People coming together to grieve, and to console each other are the more likely realities. They are realities that showcase impact. Helping with those efforts is advocacy.

Now that you see why we tend to resort to these “crutches,” challenge yourself to look back on your newsroom’s coverage so far. Does some of this ring true? Did part of the coverage you helped with or saw “lose grip” on the impact of this event? If so, stop and learn from it. Viewers are counting on you. It isn’t too late.

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.