anchoring – Survive Your Job In Television News

Why Can’t Journalists Want To Make Good Money? Let’s Take A Closer Look At The Expectations Broadcasting Groups Need To Let Go Of To Survive As An Industry.

For months, articles have been posted on LinkedIn and publications that report on media, about the growing decline of applicants for TV news jobs. I have written quite a few myself and touched on something important that needs to be said in more blunt terms, so it hopefully resonates better.

Journalism can be a vocation that warrants, even commands good pay. From the time I entered J-School, aspiring journalists were told this is a calling. This is a vocation. This job is hard and you will pay your dues and you may never make a lot of money. But you will love the job. There is nothing else like it. Or is there?

A lot of outlets allow you to tell stories, research issues, explain concepts to communities and most importantly help you advocate for others. The vocational element of journalism is not the top sell anymore. Read that again. This calling is rapidly losing appeal. There are other outlets that can and will feed journalists’ souls.

Broadcasting companies push this it’s a calling, vocation attitude. It’s a reason given for not being able to pay well throughout newsrooms. It is time for broadcasting groups to understand that several generations’ worth of the workforce, don’t agree. They want good pay and feel the training they got warrants the money. It is also easier than before to look up and understand the huge pay differences between newsroom employees, station managers, and the executives telling you, not to push too hard on the money, it’s a calling and privilege to be a journalist. I am asked all the time if that is true, shouldn’t that apply to the executives as well? In addition, many stations are making good money, even though the pandemic. Journalists understand this. They know there is potentially more money available, but the corporate level is not releasing as many funds as it could. One of the most common reasons given is because the company has to research and create digital platforms. While true, there is a missing link that needs to be stated clearly.

Executives need to understand, the commodities that make the company profitable, are the journalists. They to a large degree are the product, because their critical minds, fact-finding training, and ability to boil down complex material so the community can absorb the information is what the executives sell. Journalism has to be done well, to make it viable long term. Cheapening the product has led to issues with credibility and frankly relevance. Put it on any platform you want. If the product is weak, it will not sustain anywhere. Discerning minds are the most precious resource a newsroom has. Invest in the brains of the room.

Going to more digital products makes sense, but you still need skilled professionals with the ability to share information in a relatable way. In fact that commodity is still absolute. The platform is secondary. So it is frustrating to see the same issue happening with digital producer pay. Many make even less than the TV content generators. Yet this is the platform of the future. Please explain the logic?

Journalists should not be shamed for asking to make a livable wage and rewarded for the training they received. In fact, it’s time to do more comparison research to see what other content creators make and raise producers, reporters, and digital content creators’ salaries. The initial sting is going to be cheaper than the cost of letting this issue continue to fester. Journalism has suffered enough. Credibility is too at risk.

Journalists can and should want to make good money. They take on a lot of responsibility and sacrifice a lot of time with their families. Being a doctor and a politician are vocations too. But you do not see people in these roles struggling to pay their bills each month. It’s time to pay journalists their worth, recognizing this reality instead: Journalists are experts, skilled, highly marketable, and extremely important to a well-functioning society. Let that role reflect more in their pay. The pandemic has created an opportunity to restructure. Why not start to design these changes now?

TV Survival Skills. The 10 Things You Need To Do To Be Successful In The Modern Newsroom

1. CAN YOU FIND EXCLUSIVE STORIES? No really…can you find the story that makes politicians and PIO’s lose sleep?? Better yet, can you do this even with news of the day? Do you have fast attack investigative skills? You better! Everyone can get PIO info and sound. You have to be able to separate from your competition to get paid. How do you do that?? Know the process and procedures of paperwork- school districts, police and sheriff- what documents exist and when do they become available? Time is quickly wasted, opportunity and credibility forever lost by not knowing procedures. Can you get a great tip confirmed? Most reporters cannot. You are only as valuable as the contact list in your phone.

2. WORK SMARTER, NOT HARDER-Do your research, demand from management a specific beat- geographic or content based. GA stands for going anywhere-owning nothing! Develop sources that work for you. Build relationships before asking for stories. Go left when other go right. Stand out by standing apart. If someone pitches you a story- make them do the document digging, and initial research- then they can come back and pitch you a partially vetted legitimate story. You just have to confirm documents and details- not spend hours chasing empty leads.

3. Shoot in sequences, write in sequences, edit in sequences- this saves hours! The best MMJ’s are the most creative while being the most efficient!

4. Your professional Facebook likes/Twitter followers/LinkedIn profile will make or break a hiring decision. These are your personal brand. They directly reflect your audience appeal, your marketing savvy, and your ability to tease a story! Do you understand news and how to promote yourself as well as your coverage? Social media answers all these questions.

5. Have a career plan- It is a simple question with horrific consequences- What is your TV career goal?? Most TV folks stumble on this simple question. Your answer will be used against you in a hiring decision. This is a weeding out technique and is a loyalty test for current employees being considered for promotion.

6. Out work your teammates- first in, last out, first to call-in to cover breaking news, first to ask to travel, this effort gets you choice assignments, management trust, and promoted to the anchor desk.

7. Hot mess- if you are one and want to anchor or jump to a big market you will go nowhere. You must apply appearance feedback at every level and every turn. Everyone that looks at your tape or consults you should be heard and further feedback solicited. One consultant or ND could be a bit eccentric, 2-5 people saying you appear less than polished is problematic.

8. Your cover letter is killing you! It is costing you a look at your tape- which is the whole goal! Don’t try to tell me you know someone I used to work with 3 stations ago or we are from the same town! What are you going to do to make my newsroom better today? Why do I have to hire you versus the 50 people that look and sound like you??? This is the written interview that gets you the tape review and phone interview- Be consistent in your message, your strengths, and what makes you a difference maker. How do you fit in with my news style and newsroom needs?

9. Never send a glossy 8X10 head shot- instant rejection- are you a model/ actor/ or journalist?? Send me a resume tape with exclusive banners on every story- that’s a beautiful picture!!

10. Is your cellphone number, Facebook and Twitter handles on your business card? Personal cellphone? You are fully available to your audience and sources or not. No problem, I call your competition with my exclusive story.

There are a hundred things a journalist has to excel at to be successful in the modern newsroom. These are ten of the most critical to master to avoid a career setback. Our next blog will answer” Why your resume tape is killing your job search”.

Now go be memorable!

Greg Turchetta is President, www.Brutallyhonestcritique.com and a former News Director
He’s now a life coach to reporters and anchors nationwide!

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.

Making Desk Calls: The Risk To Your Credibility

Recently there was a bunch of talk on Twitter about why anchors sometimes feel the need to make producing calls from the desk during a newscast. Producers talked about ways they try and prevent this from happening by being proactive before the show. Others discussed how this really causes them to lose respect for the anchors. Mostly though, the discussion centered on why then?

Let me quantify, this is not in reference to anchors who also produce the show and have no choice. We are talking about anchors who sit on the desk and ask the producer to move things around in the rundown or say they aren’t going to read story such and such or are going to mention a breaker next. This is a slippery slope. The biggest reason may surprise you. In today’s “everything has to be automated world” it can be very hard to just move things around on the fly. The anchor could be setting him or herself up for a major live mess up.

Some anchors make the argument it is worth the risk because they are seasoned journalists and the producer is green. I totally see that. Understand there are likely times the anchor is absolutely making the right call. The issue here is the timing.

Possible technical snafus aside, anchors making quick on desk decisions exposes something anchors should never want discussed. Lack of dedication. That newscast was not put together in a vacuum. Chances are high the story you want moved was in the rundown for hours before the newscast. Even if the producer writes copy late, you can at least check to see what each story is about based on slug, so you are informed of the subject matter. That is part of an anchor’s prep work before a newscast. Just sitting back and waiting for the scripts to come in is never a good way to gain credibility. If you want it moved up, you better know the facts of the story very well. You are taking a big risk that you will be ad libbing. You want to make sure you absolutely know what you are talking about.

Then there’s the issue of who’s really in charge during a live newscast. There needs to be a clear chain of command. Too many decisions are made on the fly. It needs to be clear to all involved who is making the call. No hesitation. Bottom line, even if that producer is half your age, management gave that producer that designation.

One last clarification. If the producer is trying to throw in a breaker, and the anchor doesn’t know what is happening, he/she may be forced to “make a call” on the set. This is more of an extreme circumstance and should not be lumped in with the points being made in this article. The anchor has to make sure fact errors do not come out of their mouth during breaking news. There is no time to check ahead of time in this case. But if the story has been in the newscast, even as a slug for hours, the producer should be the only voice making decisions to move things around during the live newscast.