Post by Stephen Neal[snip]
Post by :::Jerry::::But in '97 that is exactly were the reports were made from, it was the
middle of the night, the later reports by someone standing outside
Buck' House were for effect only, there could have been few if any
people who didn't know what had happened - all the real action was
taking place in either 10 Downing Street, Paris, Balmoral or at
Althorp, Buck' House was nothing more than a clearing office for PR,
even the crowds were assembling IIRC at Kensington Palace...
That may have been the case "behind the scenes" - but in terms of a single
"royal" location there really is nowhere more iconic than Buckingham Palace.
Sure, Kensington Palace became the original focus of the public, but in
terms of continued reporting of the "royal" angle Buckingham Palace had to
be the location.
No, the location could have been the Moon, it the story that matters.
If any broadcaster had chosen Althorp or Kensington House
Post by Stephen Neal(Balmoral would be out because of the difficulty of scrambling a link there
in the timescale) they would have "looked" less stately than if they were at
Buck House.
Whether it is the actual centre of the story or not, Buck House is still
where the public expect Royal stories to be anchored from.
No, broadcasters expects that, the viewer will accept what the
broadcaster gives. What the viewer wants is the STORY not the hype -
And now 'LIVE' to the scene were we will be given the latest, cut to
link, reporter says the same as was said in the studio (or the
recorded report that was made earlier) is hype or worse still self
gratification about their use of technology.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::in the context of 1997 news reporting
Post by Stephen Nealtechniques. All the major news providers reported from Buckingham
Palace -
Post by Stephen Nealif the BBC hadn't it would have seemed crazy.
I'm not saying that it's just the BBC who have and still are
dumbing
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::down 'news', just look at the ITN programme at 18:30.....
Not getting into that - in 1997 all the major news providers pretty much
followed the same pattern. Get a dish/link/inject to Buck House and ensure
you have a solid reporter in front of that camera - it may not be where the
story is precisely developing, but it is a hell of a lot better than a
presenter in a studio.
'Because we can', not because it's going to add anything to the story.
Nick W or Jenny B standing outside Buck' House added nothing but a
sense of hype, perhaps a minority of viewers believe that the reporter
has been popping in and out of Buck' House to get the facts but most
don't I suspect.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::Post by Stephen NealJust because cardboard graphics and black and white cameras were
used in
Post by Stephen Neal1963, would you argue that electronic graphics and colour were
needless as
Post by Stephen Nealwell. Technology moves on, and the methods used to tell a story
(whether a
Post by Stephen Nealfactual news story or a fictional one) moves on.
Of course they do, but standing someone outside a location, just
because it can be done, doesn't mean it adds anything.
Neither does it automatically become wrong. TV News is both about News and
Television. If it is not visually interesting people won't always watch.
You have failed to give them the "News" if they aren't watching. It is a
balancing act.
So it's better to dumb the news down to the lowest common denominator
is it ?
The problem is that going live to the location of some land-mark or
other to give a backdrop for the reporter and then hear yet another
version of the same story that has already been used to introduce the
'live' report' does nothing but waste time that could have been used
in the studio to go deeper into the story.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::Sometimes it
adds nothing but an un needed distraction, as in the report about road
congestion mention earlier, that would have been better as a pre
filmed report with a proper VO.
If time had allowed then that is probably right. However if the report was
at lunchtime, or was a late decision, you don't always have the flexibility
to cover everything with a cut story. Whilst poor quality live reporting
does nobody any favours, there are more ways of clearly telling a story in a
news bulletin than a package.
Never heard of generic stock footage, in the time it took to travel to
the location and set the link up the reporter could have done a VO - I
used the story to illustrate the 'we can so we must' stupidity of many
live links.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::OTOH, and going back to Diana's death,
a reporter standing in front of the underpass (with the Police
activity in the background etc.) did add to the story.
Yes - though presumably this would have taken longer to organise given the
overseas nature of the story.
And hence more thought went into a/. the need, and b/. what was going
to said and shown.
Post by Stephen Neal[snip]
Post by :::Jerry::::So an image of what the news reader is talking about looks fake does
it, I think there are some people around who are really
under-estimating the intelligence levels of the viewer if that really
is the reason why a reporter has to stand outside TVC to talk about
the BBC...
The grammar of picture insets behind a presenter reading a cue are very
different to those of a background behind a live reporter. One is obviously
a graphical device, the other arguably an artifice. Following your argument
it would be acceptable to have a reporter in London sat with a CSO of Moscow
behind him to cover a Moscow story, rather than a reporter actually in
Moscow. I'd argue the former was dishonest (though some news
organisations
If what the reporter says are the facts who cares, next you'll be
claiming that a radio reporter needs to be stanbding in Red Square !
There are times were there will *need* to a TV news reporter in Red
Square, but often there isn't - again is news in fact news or is it
entertainment, if people are disinterested in current-affairs / news
they are not going to be anymore interested with someone standing in
the rain outside some land-mark or other...
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::Post by Stephen NealPost by Stephen NealSimilarly a close-up in a newsroom in Westminster says
Post by Stephen Neal"Politics" far less than a live from College Green with a
Parliamentary
But a green screened image of the same backdrop will....
Not as well no. The Westminster CSO is a cheap and cheerful get-out
when it
Post by Stephen Nealis raining, or the programme doesn't have the budget for a crew to
go to
Post by Stephen NealCollege Green. It is clearly better to interview someone from a
real
Post by Stephen Neallocation than a fake one.
Never heard of a studio set, people are not interested in were the
interview is taking place, they are interested in what the
interviewee
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::has to say - or that is what should be happening, quite often the
location becomes a distraction, what with passing traffic and the
like.
I don't agree. I think the manner of the interview is, these days, as
important as the content, as it places it in context. If you
interview an MP
Post by Stephen Nealin front of Parliament it places them in context.
Oh, right, so telling someone and putting up a caption that Joe Bloggs
is the MP for Anytown and the Cabinet Minister for Ministerial affairs
is not enough, people are to ignorant to make the link and need to see
Parliament !...
If you perform the same
Post by Stephen Nealinterview on a set in a Westminster newsroom it is far less
immediate, and
Post by Stephen Nealcertainly "duller" television, and in my view certainly less
watchable.
Post by Stephen NealThere is no point doing this stuff if nobody watches.
It's news, not entertainment, people are either watching or not, those
who are disinterested in news won't be watching, just as people who
are disinterested in football don't watch football.
Anyway, what's with that studio that over looks Parliament, the one on
the South side of the Themes, with the large window..... Or is that
just a projected image.....
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::I doubt the viewing figures have increased for Question time
because
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::it's not now stuck in London anymore, people watch it to hear what the
guests have to say, why do people think that news programmes are any
different - unless they consider that news is know entertainment
rather than current-affairs / news ?...
I'd argue that allowing people around the UK to take part in
Question Time
Post by Stephen Nealwithout trekking down to London is a pretty good reason not to
anchor the
Post by Stephen Nealshow permanently in London. Surely you get a more representative cross
section of the audience if you move around the country. People outside
London pay a licence fee as well...
Yes, I totally agree but that wasn't the point of the remark, the
point was about the viewing figures, the programme still comes (in the
main) from a studio - people are watching to hear what the guests say.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::Post by Stephen NealPost by Stephen NealIn the era of continuous news channels, where people often watch
Post by Stephen Nealwith the sound down in offices, a visual "cue" to a story is a
factor in how
Post by Stephen Nealyou tell the story. (Another reason why on-screen graphics are
now
Post by Stephen NealPost by Stephen NealPost by Stephen Nealeverywhere on all major news channels worldwide)
By the time the 'bimo' reporter is being TX'd the 'headline' of
the
Post by Stephen NealPost by Stephen Nealstory has been and gone, anyone turning up the sound then will be
playing catch up - but if there had been the good old graphic,
like in
Post by Stephen NealPost by Stephen Nealthe days of Baker & Woods etc., the same person would only miss
the
Post by Stephen NealPost by Stephen Nealfirst few words or so.
Yes - but in the days of Baker and Woods the news was often days old
anyway...
Only news from isolated international locations, surely ?..
Well the BBC World Service reporting team is about as large as it gets, and
whenever news breaks they seem to be on-air on News 24, BBC World as well as
BBC One and Radio Five Live pretty quickly. They may be "isolated
international locations" - but I'd still rather hear from Rachel Harvey in
Banda Aceh, than a presenter in London, when I want to know about the extent
of the Tsunami...
Err I was remarking about news circa 1970, most news stories back then
were fresh when reported and when they weren't they were still
topical.
Does it really matter if the report is live or recorded, is it better
to have the possibility of (Gilligan) loose reporting or a considered
recorded report, just what does a live report bring to the story and
facts that a recorded report doesn't, true there might well be a sense
of 'being there' but a well reported and edited pre-recorded report
can do the same.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::Post by Stephen NealLive reporting may have a lot to answer for - but when done well and
from
Post by Stephen Nealthe right location it enhances news reporting hugely.
Oh, I agree ! What I'm arguing about is the times when it doesn't,
which seem to be increasing - reports 'live from the scene' that add
nothing at all to the studio report (or even the pre-recorded report
from the same location by the same reporter) that preceded the 'live'
report.
Though arguably the live "nothing has changed" report is actually valuable
in informing you of that, rather than leaving you to infer it...
No, it just wastes time that could be used to either go deeper into
the story (even if that is studio based) or for another news item. The
anchor presenter telling us the story and then going to a live report
from the scene to be told either the same or nothing is insulting to
most of the audience I suspect.
Post by Stephen NealPost by :::Jerry::::As I said originally, the use of technology just because we can, not
because it's really required (it's going to add to the report in a
significant way).
I'd argue that live reporting adds value in that more people watch it...
They either watch news / current affairs or not, most of those who do
want the fact and not the hype of having a live report that adds
nothing to the story.
I can see the need for a reporter to be at the scene, they get the
story, report the fact back to the news centre (possibly sending back
on-camera reports for recording) and on the rare occasions report live
from the location if and when something is happening or that there
really has been 'breaking news'.
How many times has there been live reports form some location only for
the reporter to VO images that were shot earlier - in short the whole
need for the live insert was zero....