newscast – Page 8 – Survive Your Job In Television 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.

Sell vs. Surprise: Why there is a difference

I was visiting with an accomplished storyteller recently who was complaining about the producer stealing the surprise in his package. The producer “gave it away” in the anchor intro. Sound familiar? This isn’t the first time frustration over producer’s ruining the story in intro’s has come up. In fact “ Taking ownership from the first line of the anchor intro “was written to urge producers to be cognizant of the whole picture. That said; there is another side. As I spoke with this reporter it struck me. The reporter was confusing the sell with the surprise in his story. I thought back to many heated copy editing sessions where I would try and explain to reporters, over and over, that a certain element had to be in the intro. Often I was dealing with seasoned reporters who consistently crafted compelling pieces.

As this industry continues to push the marketing side of things to maintain and grow audience, understanding the sell of your stories is going to get increasingly important. Producers are being pushed to turn newscasts that look different. Understanding what consultants and managers term “the sell” and “the surprise” in stories is crucial. So let’s define both.

The sell is the reason you are doing the story. It is the reason you think the audience will continue to watch the story instead of change the channel. You need to capture the audience’s attention in the anchor intro so there’s no chance to turn away. That’s why the sell has to get into the anchor intro. Producers will fight you and will win the battle to have the sell in the intro. It cannot be totally saved as the surprise.

The surprise is the part of your story that will leave an imprint on the audience. It is the fact that they will not stop thinking about. It is the irony, the emotional connection, the incredible image, the climax of your story. See the difference?

So why isn’t the sell the same as the surprise? The surprise is the exclamation point. The sell is the subject of the sentence. The sell can allude to the surprise, but isn’t the actual surprise. Here’s an example of how to preserve the sell and the surprise when they are closely linked. Let’s say an amazing artifact was dug up at a construction site in your city. You can say just that in the anchor intro. “Construction workers dug up an amazing artifact today.” The actual artifact can be the surprise. Do not show an image of it in the intro or teases. The fact that it’s something amazing and was dug up is the sell. Strong story tellers will have that little extra, that goes beyond just saying what the artifact is. Remember the surprise is the emotional connection. What if, for example, you have an amazing sound bite that really explains why this artifact is incredible. Maybe someone has been on the hunt for this artifact for years, and can finally see it and tell the viewer why he spent a lifetime looking for it. That may be one of the surprises. Then you can “giveaway” the actual artifact in the anchor intro. You allude to that surprise in the pitch.

Often reporters would get angry that I or my producer wrote that an artifact was found, or possibly list what the artifact was. It was the sell. The story of why a man spent a lifetime trying to find it and the way the construction worker came across the artifact are the surprises in the reporter’s piece.

One final thought. As a reporter you want to make darn sure the anchor intro to your piece is strong enough that the audience is waiting with anticipation for your story. To do, that you have to give away some of the goods to get them to see your hard work. The sell is the no brainer to do that. Use that knowledge to your advantage so the surprises you craft truly wow the viewers.

What are Nielsen diaries really like?

This week, I emailed back and forth with Bob Sellers (@TV_Agent_Bob on Twitter) with Media Stars. He shared a link to an excellent article he wrote for the Huffington Post about being a Nielsen family. It really explains what families are asked to do, when keeping a diary and some imperfections that can cost shows ratings. As I read the article I was fascinated with all the scenarios that lead to some shows not getting mentioned (even though they were watched) in a diary and why. Sellers also discussed changing formats in order to gain audience when people typically change the channel. Producers, read that article for that section. Great food for thought when tweeking your own rundown.

The article also made me think about the time I went to a Nielsen office. I actually got to thumb through diaries about a newscast for which I was supposed to raise the ratings. I went with several other news managers, a promotions manager and the producer of the show. It was humbling and scary. The incredible amount of misspellings and grammatical errors were unnerving when you thought of all the hard work and agonizing hours to get people to watch the newscasts. Then I noticed several mentions of my station’s anchors, by first and last name, listed under the wrong station call letters! When we quizzed a Nielsen employee about this we were told the call letters were what got credit. It was devastating and maddening. We already felt like we made the anchors and reporters say the station’s name too often on the air. It sounded robotic. But still, so many diaries had the station channel number or call letters wrong.

Most fascinating for me though, was reading the notes about why people watched what they did. That’s the section I was in charge of concentrating on. These diaries were supposed to give me insight into what the viewers liked and wanted more of from our newscasts. So many of the answers were so strange, that I feared I would not see any tangible solutions to raise our ratings. For example, one diary mentioned the person loved when anchors wore a specific color. That was the determining factor for watching a newscast on a given day. After a lot of reading, I was able to glean some useful information. Some diaries mentioned there was nothing worth watching after 10 minutes into the newscasts, or wished weather came on at a different time. These elements did help us make some changes.

The biggest take away for the group of us was how casual the viewer seemed about the one thing we spent all our waking moments focusing on: the actual news. If they saw a newscast great, if they didn’t that was o.k. also. Time and again we read comments to the effect of: “I watch news three times a week because there’s so little new that happens.” Makes you think a little more about those follow up filler vo’s doesn’t it? How about the “throwaway” last 10 minutes of an 11pm newscast? You know the block where we’re told the ratings “don’t matter.” Well, maybe they do matter, even if viewers sometimes cannot spell or get your station call letters right. Those same people can control your destiny. I got a big introduction to how those decisions are made that day. Don’t underestimate how fickle your audience really is. Make sure that your newscast truly stands out and is memorable. Oh, and don’t forget the call letters!

Do you overwrite?

I was adding to the cliché list the other day when it hit me, so much of TV news writing is so staid, so predictable. Frankly, it’s tired and cliché. Why? In So Cliché! How to avoid overused phrases, I listed some reasons why we use these phrases when writing news stories. But there’s even more to it.

Recently I tweeted this question: What shows do you watch to get inspiration for your writing? I got the typical answers: NBC Nightly News and the FOX Report with Shepard Smith. Notice, in the question posed, I used the word, shows not newscasts. What else do you watch?

Two shows that have influenced my writing greatly are “West Wing” and “Mad Men.” Yes, fiction. Why? Because these programs really revolve around conversations. They are not fast paced action thrillers by any stretch. The words are understated, yet profound. You feel a relationship building with the characters. They become real to you. Still, we don’t really know any of these characters completely. Sometimes, hours later, a part of the conversation you watched really hits you. You have an “Aha!” moment. You can’t stop thinking about how the exchange between the characters went in a given episode. When it comes down to it, television news is a conversation between the anchors, reporters and the viewer. That conversation should also have some intimacy. We should not have to beat the viewer over the head with overstated lines. The viewer wants to hear what we have to say. They are taking time out of their busy days to learn from you. We forget to honor that sometimes. Heck, with so much talk about ratings, we forget viewers come to us. We don’t have to hunt them down. We just have to give them something appealing, and they come to us. Then, hours later, they call friends and tell them about the thing they saw or learned that haunted them. Word of mouth is still the best advertising.

Two great authors, and former journalists can also give you an idea of the power of understated writing: Rick Bragg and Malcolm Gladwell. They have different writing styles than you use when slamming out a vo. But look at how they explain interesting ideas with simple and very conversational writing. When you read their books you feel like you are sitting down and talking with them. Both write non-fiction. You feel an intimacy. Techniques they use are very translatable to TV news writing. For example: They ask questions. You will see Malcolm Gladwell set up a scenario in a sentence or two, then simply write, “Why is this?” Then he lets the situation play out. You can use that technique in cold opens, intros to reporter packages and even teases. The viewer becomes engaged, starts thinking through the situation for him or herself and feels a connection. Rick Bragg is brilliant at showcasing irony. Irony is a crux of storytelling (read Storytelling on a dime). Both are masters at describing conversations they have had. The way they let those conversations play out, can be used when writing packages. The biggest thing they do, is let people speak for themselves. Too often we cut off sound bites just as the viewer is being hooked. The viewer doesn’t get a chance to connect with the characters in our stories. These authors understand how to give you just enough from a character that you have to stop and think about this person. Again, it’s intimacy.

A final thought, neither the shows listed above, nor the authors I mention use long sentences. The writing is very simple and direct. It’s similar to what’s spelled out in the article Short and sweet, the 7 words in a sentence rule. Every word should count in some way. When you talk with someone about an important issue, you choose your words carefully. You look for connections. Writing for TV news is no different. So try and keep it simple. Overwriting does no good.