anchoring – Page 5 – 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.

What is hard news?

Let’s begin with this statement: This article is meant to start conversation. It is meant to stretch your comfort zone a little. TV news has to keep growing and reaching audiences differently for us to stay employed.

There is a conflict in television news that many managers, consultants and journalists themselves are not sure what to do with. The conflict: Defining solid television news stories. We call it hard news. We whine about it every day in story meetings. You know the mantra: “We need more hard news.” So what is hard news really? If you get a few moments Google “hard news, definition.” The definitions are fascinating. Here’s a sampling:

“news that deals with serious topics or events” from www.wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

“News, as in a newspaper or television report, that deals with formal or serious topics and events.” www.thefreedictionary.com/hard-news

“Serious news of widespread import, concerning politics, foreign affairs, or the like, as distinguished from routine news items, feature stories, or human-interest stories.” www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/hard+news

“Hard news is the kind of fast-paced news that usually appears on the front page of newspapers. Stories that fall under the umbrella of hard news often deal with topics like business, politics and international news. What defines hard news isn’t always about subject matter. Some might call a news story that’s heavily reported, on a subject matter considered softer (like entertainment), hard news because of the way it was approached. Hard news is also a term most often used by journalists and others who work in the media industry, though you will hear others outside the industry use it.” http://mediacareers.about.com/od/glossary/g/HardNews.htm

I purposely did not pull many definitions from TV news websites and reference books, because we need to see how the definitions we create impact what viewers think they will get. See how broad the definitions are? All describe ongoing types of topics: Political battles, stories about business in town, foreign affairs. Yet, most TV news veterans have seen a lot of these topics, especially business stories and foreign affairs, fail in the ratings. Even political news can be difficult to get people to watch unless it is a key election year or a very controversial subject. So what is hard news for TV journalist’s day in and out? Are we defining it incorrectly or executing wrong?

This is where the conversation comes in. Some talking points: First, what does serious news mean? Almost all of the definitions above reference serious news. Defining serious news, often explains a station’s news philosophy, understanding of its community and credibility with viewers. For the sake of argument, let’s define serious news as facts, events and people that have a direct impact on people’s lives. Events and topics that make people stop and think about their own lives and surroundings in a different way. So let’s try and put some tangibles with this idea. Let’s delve into a serious topic that often is covered horribly, if at all on TV: Education. This is a huge topic for your viewers. Your key demographic is raising children. I have worked at several stations that heralded a calendar year, as the year of education coverage. In all cases but one, the station dumped the idea within 6 months. The biggest problem is that education stories are often very video poor. Many schools do not allow you to shoot any video inside. But there are other ways to cover education besides sending a reporter to do a pkg. The biggest opportunity: Debates with local experts on hot topics in the area. Issues like, whether standardized testing is fair, teacher pay, new educational standards and school closings. All evoke a lot of emotion. They do not need b-roll. They need sound to play out. Remember the wild success of the cable network talk shows. You can turn mini-segments that will really get people talking.

Now, the next level of coverage: Show me the people in the schools grinding every day to make a difference. Make some of that coverage positive, because frankly most coverage of teachers involves one screaming at, smacking or diddling a kid. Yes, these stories are important. But we also want to showcase that there are teachers and supervisors that have very positive influences on students and families. Many managers over the years called this too soft, or said we don’t have time for “features.” Remember, hard news needs impact. It showcases events and topics that make people stop and think about their own lives and surroundings differently. (Yes, I am repeating that line, it is important!!) People love to watch stories about other people. Never underestimate the viewer’s fascination with their neighbors. It is basic human nature. Oprah made a gazillion bucks because she understood that. To truly cover a serious issue, like education, you need to showcase all sides. You need to show the human connections. This proves to the viewer you an informed witness, not just another group with an agenda. Remember, viewers are extremely media savvy in this day and age. If you come up with an advocacy campaign and ram it down people’s throats without another counterbalance kind of coverage, you eventually lose some respect. So called “feature” stories about the cool chemistry teacher who reaches students in a unique way, are as important to the viewer as live coverage during hearings about school closures or new testing policies. You have to showcase all elements of impact. That teacher also impacts a lot of lives and seeing a story about the teaching approach helps teach parents ways they can educate their child differently. That has a serious edge. Therefore, it is “hard news” coverage.

Which leads to my next talking point about hard news: It does not always need conflict. Sometimes you just need to relay the facts in a situation so that viewers can learn information and draw conclusions for themselves. A perfect example is health news. If you think health news is all feature fluff, you are very out of touch with the average human being. Everyone thinks about their health. They worry about family members or friends. Everyone has questions. Everyone has concerns. Health news should never be a feature that’s simply considered “fill” for a section of a newscast just to get viewers to weather. It is a type of hard news and should be treated as such. Health news has almost as broad an impact as weather. It’s just usually treated as a throwaway, and therefore comes across that way to the viewer. Next time an interesting health and/or fitness story pops on the wires, sit down and brainstorm on ways you could make it a lead story. I am not saying you really must lead with it, but treat the story like you would hard news. (Remember the definition above that references some things like entertainment news becoming hard news because of the coverage approach?). Look at it critically. Ask a lot of WIFM questions (if that confuses you read What is the viewer benefit really? ) and see if you end up with a fascinating edgy pkg idea or segment for your newscast.

My final and most crucial point is hard news should directly influence people’s lives. Again the word impact. Let’s replace the word serious in the above definitions, with the word impact. Let’s consider how most stations cover several topics, starting with crime. There’s a home invasion in a crime ridden neighborhood and police think it is drug related. If hard news is about serious issues that directly affect your viewers lives, is a live shot outside the house with a banner saying home invasion fair and/or enough? Are you giving the viewer, who counts on you to be the experts in your community, an accurate representation of where they live? Or are you in lust for a 40 second quickie that allows you to type in home invasion on a live super because it’s “sexy?”

Studies by The Pew Research Center consistently show that people are interested and looking for news about the economy, and aren’t getting the coverage. Slapping up a 20 second reader with an over the shoulder that says “unemployment down” is not the kind of economic news they want though. People are confused. Concerns over their job security, the worth of their house, if they will ever have enough money to retire, and if more of their neighbors are going hungry are daily topics. I can honestly tell you that not a week has gone by in three years that I have not overheard or been involved in a conversation with “viewers” about concerns over the economy. It is a constant. I hear it in grocery store checkout lines, picking kids up from school, having friends over for dinner, taking a walk in the neighborhood, and in exercise classes. People are worried. They feel at a loss for information. They need help. That is hard news. It has impact.

So remember, when considering if a story idea is hard news, consider the likelihood people are talking about that story and have lingering questions. Is there a new set of facts people need to know about, but don’t have the information? Is there something going on they should care about, but may not know yet? Think about the stories that just stick with you. A lot of those emotional connections you make with a story, involve coverage and techniques many journalists would call soft. There is a character. There is emotion. You feel differently for having watched the story. You remember those stories. But chances are most of the so called hard news you pushed for in a rundown or agonized over turning because you could not find impact… are a blur as of you drive home from work. Guess what? It’s a blur to viewers also, because they turn off the TV. They say to themselves: “This story doesn’t affect me and my friends. I cannot relate to this. Why should I bother to watch.” Believe me, they really do. I get bombarded with these comments and questions constantly. Truthfully, you probably do also from your non-news friends. Make sure the people make it into the coverage so the viewer can truly feel connected to the topic or event. Don’t fear lack of video, you can always showcase interesting sound to make your points. Do not push for or create conflict when there is none. Sometimes a story is hard just because it has great information. Finally, stop labeling types of news, like health and education as “features.” Try and show these broad appeal topics respect. Journalists are feeling more pressure these days to market and brand themselves. Taking these impact topics and delivering interesting stories with a “hard edge” is a great way to quickly make a name for yourself. Remember to focus on impact and people. The hard edge will come out in your coverage, because your viewers will be impacted by the information. You will become popular with viewers because you get what they need. You will brand yourself as “real” and “trustworthy.” Most importantly, delving into these topics can and will be journalistically gratifying. These topics can provide opportunities to empower people to change lives. Isn’t that why you got into broadcast news? What is a harder or a more serious type of news than that?

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.

The anchors don’t have any chemistry, can a producer fix it?

This can be a complex problem, that everyone involved needs to help fix. Truthfully, the bulk of the repair is often placed on the shoulders of the producer. When you watch a newscast and the anchors just don’t seem to relate to each other, there are ways around to ease the tension.

Creating chemistry

One anchor begins, where the other leaves off
Talk through chat opportunities
Play on anchor’s interests

Again, this article is from a producing perspective. Anchors, we will talk about how you can build camaraderie later. Let’s begin by helping anchors play off of each other, through scripting. These are tried and true techniques to showcase the anchors together in a way that you can control. The techniques incorporate two shots. Traditionally producers are taught to use two shots at the beginning of blocks, to start off teases, and to pitch to weather and sports. The use of a two shot is so much more important though. It provides a conversational bridge when subjects are related. To really boil it down, you can use a two shot to build your team when switching from the tag of one story, to the intro of the next. It shows the anchors working together. This requires conversational writing. (read “So Cliché” and “Rule the Word” to make sure you are doing all you can to write like people talk) Here’s a scenario with anchors “JOHN” and “BETTY” to make it clear:

(JOHN/1 SHOT-TAG)

YOU HAVE UNTIL DECEMBER 2013 TO APPLY FOR THE NEW GOVERNMENT REFINANCE PROGRAM.

(JOHN/TURN TO TWO SHOT)

WE ASKED AROUND TODAY AND A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS ARE REALLY CONF– USED ABOUT HOW TO APPLY.

(BETTY/STILL ON TWO SHOT)

AND WHO TO APPLY WITH.

AFTER ALL… THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE A SET OFFICE FOR REFINANCING YOUR HO– USE.

(BETTY/TURN TO DOUBLE BOX)

SO TODAY JOE SCHMO CHECKED… TO MAKE SURE YOU WOULD KNOW WHERE TO GO AND WHAT TO BRING.

JOE IS IT A CONFUSING PROCESS?

This copy provides a mini, controlled conversation between the anchors. The anchors quickly transition to the next part of the story, there is an opportunity for limited ad lib (when the anchor says government doesn’t have a set office for refinancing your house, the other anchor’s mic can be up so he/she could say, on the fly, something like ”it sure doesn’t”) and the anchors are working together to get the answers viewers want. I often used two shot transitions like this to build team. Then, I single anchor pitched to weather or sports more often. Those two anchor pitches to weather and sports almost always appear forced. You have to do one token 3 shot pitch to build team somewhere. But that doesn’t mean do it every time you take weather, especially in an hour long newscast.

When you do have opportunities to chat to build team (like the pitch to weather) ask the anchors to plan it out for you. Have whomever actually pitches to weather go to the meteorologist to ask about what’s first in the forecast. Yes, it is easier for you to just throw a line in, since you talk with the weather person anyway. But the point is to help the anchors build relationships. The hope is that going in to ask that question before the newscast will lead to a conversation so the anchors continue to find ways to relate to each other.

Here’s another technique to help with chat: I used to write only the words “ad lib” in at least one tag per newscast (usually on a lighter story) to force the anchors to talk to each other and come up with a plan for chat somewhere in the show, other than weather and sports. I made sure the anchors looked at that script well before the show. The rest was up to the anchors to hash out. If I had awesome video, I would take a two shot coming out, with at most a factoid in there, so the two anchors would have to talk to each other. This often helped break the ice a bit.

It can be also very effective to have one anchor read a story about a subject the other anchor really likes. Then you go to a two shot at the very end of the tag. It can make for a great ad lib opportunity. I had an anchor that loved Halle Berry. (Anytime he said her name he would actually blush!) So sometimes I had the other anchor read the story about Halle Berry, then say the last line of the tag on a two shot. I did that just so we could catch the other anchor blushing a bit. Even if they didn’t ad lib, the look between them was priceless! His co-anchor would smile and roll her eyes as he blushed. It was a very human, relatable moment. This is another reason why it is important to learn about your anchors and their personal interests (see “How to get inside your anchors heads and write in their voices”).

The most important thing to keep in mind when trying to create chemistry, is keeping the moments of interaction brief. Again, that doesn’t mean avoiding two shots. It means using two shots more as a transition in the middle of news blocks, and less as a way to chat and possibly fill time in places like weather and sports. As the anchors get used to playing off each other, the chemistry often starts to jell. You just have to give it time and some gentle nudges.