Survival Kit – Page 22 – Survive Your Job In Television News

On the Spot! When anchors put reporters in uncomfortable positions on live TV.

I recently got a message posing this question: “Why do anchors so often make strange comments at the end of live shots that are nearly impossible for a reporter to gracefully respond to.” Examples you ask? Okay, see if these sound familiar. A live shot ends about something very sad, like a murder and the anchor says: “Great job, Joe Schmo, reporting live downtown.” What’s great? Someone died! Another common scenario: The reporter tags out with a fact like a vote scheduled in council tomorrow and the anchor parrots the very same fact like this: “You know Joe Schmo, the vote is tomorrow.” Joe the reporter is stuck thinking: “Yeah, idiot, I just said that.” and stares at the screen with a look of confusion. The final example, Joe the reporter explains an element of the story in the live intro or within the package, wraps up, then on the two shot out the anchor asks about that same element, like it was never addressed. The reporter is thinking: “Didn’t you listen to what I just said?” Usually that quizzical look is on his face, on live TV.

So let’s look at why this happens, then try and keep it from happening again. The “why” is usually tied to one of two things:

The need for the last word, to tie things up and transition.
Questions required in tags, by management, for interaction.

Let’s make it clear, in my experience, the need for the last word is not always an ego thing. The anchor may not be trying to act all knowing. Anchors often feel compelled to compliment reporters or reinforce team. They sometimes just don’t have very good timing. Hence the “Great job Joe Schmo” comments after a story about a murder. Instead of focusing on the story, the anchor is complimenting the reporter and it just comes off as weird. The intentions are good, but it doesn’t make the reporter feel complimented at all and leaves the viewers wondering what just happened.

Often anchors are ordered to make say something out of live shots, while in a double box. This can be mandated by management or producers who are taught to start and end live shots on double boxes, period. Sometimes this leads to the anchor getting stuck with nothing relevant to say while trying to transition. The end result is a weird comment parroting back facts the reporter just said and hoping it sounds different enough that it passes for a real reaction.

While we are on the subject of double box live tag outs, producers take note, scripting “Thanks Joe Schmo” is not always the best route. It sets up the inane comment scenario. Suggestion: Tell the anchor to call the reporter and ask for a factoid they can bring up in the double box.

Notice, I did not say ask for a question. That call should vary depending on the story and what the reporter knows about the subject. Often the most uncomfortable moments between an anchor and reporter are during a q and a in a live tag. Over time, I saw these q and a’s go awry most often when management required a question coming out of every live shot. I could (and probably will) go on and on about why scripting tag questions every time is bad in a future article. For now a summary: Sometimes it makes sense to ask a question, sometimes it is better to share a factoid the anchor can state quickly for emphasis. Both the reporter and anchor should not be blindsided. These double box interactions work best if the reporter and anchor can work them out together. Also, don’t be afraid to end a live shot, then do a two shot transition to a new subject. You can create team interactions other ways. Something like this:

((Joe Bob – 2 shot))

Thanks Joe Schmo, Suzie, there’s a similar situation in Atlanta tonight.

((Suzie Q -2 shot))

There is Joe… and it’s causing problems for a lot of people.

((Suzie turns to 1 shot))

See Anchor’s don’t have chemistry for more on how to work these two shot transitions.

Now, let’s look at more solutions to prevent these “on the spot” moments. Anchors, it is human nature to want to tie up a conversation with a thank you or a compliment. Just be cognizant of what the subject is about. Think about talking with a friend about a tragedy in his/her life, the end of the conversation might be silence. It might also be a shake of the head. That is appropriate at the end of a live shot as long as you are really feeling the emotion. If you are just plain uncomfortable, ask the producer not to script a two shot for that particular tag and explain that you are uncomfortable. Just remember, if the subject is heavy, that is not the time to tell the reporter “Great job.” Send a text after the show instead. Reporters, if the anchor does say great job, nodding your head and saying nothing else is fine. Reporters also do not have to have the last word. Let the emotion ride a second in the silence. It may seem counterintuitive in a business where you are paid to talk, but it is more natural to the way we communicate in the real world.

If the anchor asks about something the reporter just said, it is best for the reporter to briefly summarize with an added tidbit. You might say, “Yes Suzie, that council vote I referenced earlier will be at 7, and they’re expecting a big crowd, so you might want to come early if you want a seat.” This lessens the “Huh, he already said that!” blow. If you cannot add anything when you summarize, just say “That’s right.” and wrap.

Finally, if the anchor says something really out there and you don’t know what to do, just sig out. Viewers are used to seeing reporters not react to things anchors say and will likely assume you couldn’t hear the anchor or there was a technical difficulty. That assumption, and slightly tense moment is better than fumbling through a response that just doesn’t make sense and/or being visibly uncomfortable. Then make sure the producer knows what happened, so everyone can trouble shoot in the future. Bottom line, there needs to be communication between anchors, producers and reporters to avoid putting a reporter “on the spot” the next night.

“To be or not to be” The ultimate writing challenge.

When I ask journalists what they want to improve on most, I am usually told writing. Yet the more newscasts I watch, the more I am struck by the sheer number of basic mistakes that make it on air. (Don’t feel badly, this even happens on the network level) One cannot help but wonder if people are either that clueless about grammar and basic rules for writing to the ear, or if journalists are so overwhelmed they simply write anything and put it on air just to make deadline.

I understand no one is perfect (I’m not). That’s why so many of us have goals to write better. But how do you actually improve your writing, especially when it’s obvious from watching newscasts, that there is next to no feedback on your work? We will continue to provide ways to help improve writing. (Here’s a link to other writing tips in case you missed them.) Now let’s focus on “to be” and all of its forms.

Next time you have a few minutes print out several recent scripts you wrote and grab a highlighter. Take that highlighter and mark off every time you use a version of “to be.” Chances are your scripts will have a bunch of highlights. Here are some examples: “He was hit by a car.” “Protestors are being heard inside council chambers.” “He is facing murder charges.” “She was being given a plea deal.” When writing conversationally, using “was,” “being” and “are” becomes a real crutch.

Now take a look at those sentences with a form of “to be” in them. When you read those sentences out loud to yourself, do many of them seem exaggerated or just silly? How do you face a murder charge? Be active. He is charged. A car hit the man. Protestors spoke during the council meeting. Prosecutors offered her a plea deal. Hear the difference? Here’s another common example to explain what I mean. Usually you will hear this phrase in news copy, “The investigation is continuing.” Either it is, or it is not. You should say, “the investigation continues.” The “is –ing” combination is among the worst you can do. It is sloppy, wishy washy, and passive. Anchors and reporters do not need to come across that way. Period.

An assistant news director I worked with years ago, would put together amazing writing seminars. He would get you pumped to go write, then lay down this law: “From now on, you cannot use any form of “to be” in your copy. No exceptions.” Think about that for a minute. Look at your news copy. Could you pull that demand off every day under intense deadline pressure? That’s what my co-workers and I had to do. Yes, it was extreme and very challenging! But it made us all much stronger writers. Eventually he did ease the mandate. But by that time you were used to avoiding “to be.”

By doing this he forced us to use active voice. He forced us to take a stand in our news copy. No room for winging it. You had to know the facts. Think about it, you cannot really “couch it” much without using “to be.” Our scripts were clear, concise and consistent.

So if you want to challenge yourself as a writer try to avoid or even drop all forms of “to be” even if it’s for one or two news blocks a day. Reporters, try it once or twice a week when you are less slammed to ease into it if you must. If going “cold turkey” scares you, at least dump the “is –ing” combination. See what an impact it really makes.

One thing you need to require of your agent regularly.

Whether to hire an agent is an age old debate in the TV News biz. People have strong feelings about agents and their role in the business. As the industry trends toward turning more content with less people, agents are becoming more essential in my eyes. The reason may surprise you. It is not because there are less jobs. Bottom line if you have talent, you will find work. So why are agents becoming more essential? They are advocates for you, not only when looking for work but also while you work the job the agent helped you find.

Here’s what I mean. Of course, agents keep tabs on where the jobs are and what type of skill sets managers want. But they also keep tabs on trends in the industry. So a good agent should be able to look at your skill sets and let you know what elements you need to focus on to grow and become even more marketable. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. The agent should want to help you not only get a good job, but grow in that job so you can eventually move to another, bigger, job. Both of you win. Both of you make more money. Both of you make names for yourselves in the industry.

This is why when you vet an agent you need to make sure that this person will regularly critique your work, and that news managers think this person has a clue about identifying and training talent. Yes, I said training. Over the years, the pitfalls I found with agents were that many had connections to get you a job, but were not respected in the industry as able to help journalists grow. If you want a headhunter to place you, hire a head hunting type service. If you want someone to just look over a contract, hire an attorney. If you want a good agent, hire someone who regularly provides insight into the news business and will regularly critique your work to help hone your skills.

That, my friends, is the one thing you should require of your agent. You want regular critiques of your work. Make your requirement clear before you hire your agent and hold them accountable. There are agents that already do this as a general rule and truly feel they are an advocate for you throughout your career. This is the kind of agent you want. Ask for this upfront, and demand a clear explanation of how you will get these critiques.

So what does requiring regular critiques of your work really mean? It means more than an occasional newsletter listing industry trends and an article or two about things like what to and not to wear on air. It means the agent actually reviews some of your recent work, then sends back thoughts on what you did. It means setting up regular conversations where you decide together what skill sets you want to improve on in the next six months, the next year, by the end of your contract, etc. This person will then review your work and let you know how you are doing at improving those skills. The agent and you should also have conversations about what job you want to have in two years and/or five years. What will you do and what will the agent do to try and make those goals reality? An agent cannot promise to get you to the network in five years. But an agent can help you identify what makes your writing and presentation skills unique so you can build on your assets to increase your chances.

Remember, making sure an agent will provide regular critiques and work with you toward your goals is your responsibility to set up. Agents offer different things. You need to make sure you are getting what you want, when you want it. You need to research and make sure the agent you are thinking of hiring can deliver on your expectations. Then requiring critiques should be a simple matter of scheduling when you will talk next.

Why photojournalists should put together photo essays even if your station doesn’t often air them.

Okay, I can hear you talking to your computer screens now, calling this idea (and me) crazy. Photojournalists hoof it all day, bust their butts, are exhausted at the end of it and don’t need more work with no reward. Hear me out though. This is meant to help you keep perspective.

Perspective on what? Why you hoof it all day, bust your butt and work yourself to the bone. There is an art to your craft. Artists need time to just create. I am not saying turn a piece every week or month. But when a story really gnaws at you and you shot the heck out of it and only a small part of your great video was used, save the video and turn a photo essay. Even if you will probably get a “No” answer, give it to an EP and ask where it could air. Put the piece on YouTube. Show it to your spouse or your favorite reporter. Send a link to the photojournalist that inspired you to become one yourself. Post a link on the SurviveTVNewsJobs Facebook page. Experiment and take ownership in having a piece that is just yours.

Too often nowadays TV news is a grind. You churn and burn and it feels hollow. You end your day wondering, “Did I make a difference at all?” Great pieces can and do come along that keep the fire alive, but sometimes you get in a rut. This is a way to keep you focused. It is a way to remind you, and the reporters you work with, that TV is worthless without your video and audio. It helps you push yourself to improve your storytelling. It can also lead to other opportunities. I know a great photographer with many Emmys who was able to prove he could also write and associate produce, in part, by putting together well thought out photo essay pieces. It also feeds the artist in you. We fellow TV journalists need to see your perspective in this way sometimes. It helps us remember the true power of this medium too. So please, turn an occasional photo essay, for all of us.