Survival Kit – Page 5 – Survive Your Job In Television News

How To Write Suspect Descriptions

With tensions heating up all over the world again, it is a good time to review how to write suspect descriptions. This issue came up recently on Twitter and it seemed some were confused on when to mention race and what elements of a description were most important. So let’s review.

Suspect Description Must Do’s

List SPECIFICS
Include image if possible
Avoid broad statements

Now this list may seem a bit redundant but bear with me. The single most important rule when writing suspect descriptions is to be extremely specific. Otherwise it can appear that you are profiling. So to be clear, you cannot say “Police tell us the suspect is a (name a race) man. He ran from the scene headed East.” Before you say, of course not, I still hear descriptions like this when reviewing newscasts. You have to have specifics. Like height, a scar that is easily noticeable, and/or specific clothing (just saying in a gray hooded sweatshirt is not enough). For clarity sake let’s compare two descriptions. #1: a white male with a white t-shirt and jeans
#2: a white male possibly in his 30’s, about 5-4, wearing jeans with a hole in the left knee area and a white t-shirt with a skull and crossbones. The first description could be half the men you pass, regardless of age. The second description has very identifiable elements, an age range, 5-4 means on the shorter side, and a specific clothing description gives you a much clearer image in your head to look out for. Skin color alone is not enough. Think about it, even in your own family each of you likely has a slightly different skin tone. You need specifics, like a scar, an approximate height, long or short hair and an age range to really give the description a meaning for the viewer.

The best thing you can have is a sketch or surveillance image that you supplement with a description. This also helps avoid giving the appearance of profiling because the viewer can see what you are describing as well. Even if the surveillance video is not terrific it can usually help visually support what you are saying on some level.

Which leads to the final point, to tie things up. Avoid broad statements. If the police can only say very general things, then it is ok to say, “Police are looking for a suspect but have no specifics on a description right now.” A lot of journalists, do not feel right just saying they are looking for someone especially if there is a manhunt going on, without mentioning some sort of description. But if the description has no specifics to list, you really are doing more harm than good. It can just lead to all sorts of confusion that doesn’t help the investigation or the viewer try to help. Remember, letting viewers know descriptions is a public service with a very specific goal, to help the police find a certain person through tips. Sometimes just saying investigators are searching a small area right now is all you can accurately go with. That’s ok. You are still keeping the community aware of the situation in the area of the search. They will be on alert. That’s what is important. Especially in these tense times.

Attribution In The Digital Age

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.

When to add “breaking” information into a newscast.

Let’s face it, journalists are airing and/or publishing more mistakes than they used to. So it is a good time to reiterate some tried and true guidelines to determine when information is safe to tell the world.

Breaking News Guidelines

Two sources minimum have confirmed the information
You know the names or groups confirming the fact(s)
Another journalist looked over your information

Veteran journalists are looking at this list and rolling their eyes. Yes, I know, the old standard was really three sources. In this day and age of “WE MUST BE FIRST” three is not always going to happen. Hell, I think it’s questionable if some news organizations actually require more than one source before going with breaking news. That’s especially if we define a source. Which we need to do now. A source is NOT another journalist you overheard talking to the boss about the story, or the assignment desk repeating information while on the phone and writing notes in the assignment file. I say this because I guarantee this is a daily issue in most newsrooms. Also a source is not what the reporter or assignment editor said a story was in a summary during an editorial meeting. You have to treat those pitches as unconfirmed even if they cite a phone call or email stating the facts. You must still verify because the information more than likely was not vetted yet. Think about it. The majority of stories in a newscast rundown actually end up with key differences than during the original pitch in the editorial meeting. I am saying this so that tease writers, promotions departments and general managers remember, editorial meetings are to pitch ideas. They are not vetted stories, and a statement of absolute facts. You must verify the truth of the information later. That starts with asking who are the minimum TWO sources of information. A valid source is someone directly involved in the story, with expertise. A police officer on the scene. An accountant who saw and worked on the budget. A teacher who actually created lesson plans on the curriculum. PIO’s do qualify as sources because they speak on behalf of the agency. They are considered official. So when they screw up, it’s on them. Also, they are essentially the PR person for whomever they represent. So, the facts will often have a slant. A good journalist will double check a PIO with their own source first, just to make sure.

Producers in particular, before you go to the booth or into the IFB of an anchor with new information, know who the information you have came from. Ask the desk or EP or whomever is calling to give you a name. This seems redundant, but I cannot tell you how often asking this simple question led to some “Um Ah, let me double check this” responses from the information provider. Having to name names, means you must have solid notes, and double checked information before sharing. And sometimes asking for the name leads to expanded information like “Well I heard reporter x tell reporter y about it while they were at their desks making calls.” That could mean anything. One asking the other’s opinion on whether the fact sounds realistic. Wondering if the source seems to actually be dodging sharing some information. Or simply talking about what they hope the story will be. None of that is confirmed enough to air the information to the world. Yet this happens all the time. A producer in a hurry to write an anchor intro or a tease, overhears a story description and writes based on that eavesdropping. Especially when it’s a breaker.

Finally, you must let another journalist look over the information first. My go to was usually my anchors. Frankly, they need to look over the information before reading it anyway to make sure they understand the story and can explain it, ad lib about it, or even read the copy in a convincing manner. Having a manager read over the information first is ideal, because most anchors will do so as well and you will quickly get two sets of critical eyes. If neither questions the validity of the facts, they are even more likely to be trustworthy. In a breaking news situation there is always a certain degree of educated guesswork. The story is ever changing. But anchors and managers need to have good BS meters. Most do and if they stop and ask, “Where is that information from,” you need to have solid, clear answers. That means checks and balances happened, and you are far less likely to end up making a huge mistake. There needs to be less embarrassing screw up reels out there for the world to see.

For more on handling breaking news check out how Survive defines breakers in the first place.

Does Market Size Matter?

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.