The Future of Network News?
For some time now while conducting media training seminars, I've been predicting (just call me Carnac The Great) that the current tendency in TV news of "teasing" us repeatedly with some story, hoping that we will stay tuned to all the other news while waiting for the one story we really want to see, is anachronistic and headed for the scrap heap along with eight-track players and reruns of My Mother The Car. Who waits for ANYTHING anymore??
When I was a kid working on a term paper, I accepted as inevitable the need to go and spend a full afternoon at the public library, looking up books and periodicals as sources. Nowadays, I google my sources in half that time and punch the computer if the web page I've chosen doesn't load within 20 seconds (see Anger Management 101). I have a feeling a lot of us are like that now, and yet we persist in letting the media hold us enthralled (!) while waiting for that irresistible talking dog feature.
Well, maybe not for long. CBS News announced this week that it will finally take the plunge and launch a 24-hour Internet-based video news service that will let surfers pick those stories they want to watch and -- grasp your heart now -- IGNORE those stories in which they have no interest! What's more, CBS assures us these stories will have their own look and feel, and not be merely video stories streamed to the net. Other networks and cable outlets are exploring similar ventures.
Once again, the networks are following rather than taking the lead in the information revolution. But at least they're heading in the right direction. Will the demise of the "traditional network newscast" be far behind?
Comments? Please post for all to see!
When I was a kid working on a term paper, I accepted as inevitable the need to go and spend a full afternoon at the public library, looking up books and periodicals as sources. Nowadays, I google my sources in half that time and punch the computer if the web page I've chosen doesn't load within 20 seconds (see Anger Management 101). I have a feeling a lot of us are like that now, and yet we persist in letting the media hold us enthralled (!) while waiting for that irresistible talking dog feature.
Well, maybe not for long. CBS News announced this week that it will finally take the plunge and launch a 24-hour Internet-based video news service that will let surfers pick those stories they want to watch and -- grasp your heart now -- IGNORE those stories in which they have no interest! What's more, CBS assures us these stories will have their own look and feel, and not be merely video stories streamed to the net. Other networks and cable outlets are exploring similar ventures.
Once again, the networks are following rather than taking the lead in the information revolution. But at least they're heading in the right direction. Will the demise of the "traditional network newscast" be far behind?
Comments? Please post for all to see!
3 Comments:
I've slaved in the trenches of network TV news in various capacities since 1980 - the addition of the internet to the "I want it NOW" bent of our culture over the last 50+ years guaranteed this. I'm just surprised it didn't happen five years ago.
And since your VNR post has no comments link, I'll put this here -I have to say that as news goes, this ain't news. Since the 80s, to my certain knowledge, the VNR business has been thriving. The fact that US government agencies are releasing VNRs is also not news - they've been doing it for decades, and they've gotten very good at it.
At the network level, the intake desk will roll on all sorts of VNRs and then turn them around to affiliates during the regional feeds. They'll be identified as VNR footage, but often in the rush to fill airtime at a small station that info won't be included in the aired portion(s) of the VNR.
The dishonor involved here isn't the government's, since (for the most part) they clearly identify that it's the US government's news/position/whatever. The slippery-slope-ishness comes in when the piece is aired without being identified as an advertorial, and WITH intros/tags saying the report is for "The Morning Show" or "The Evening News". This is where Ryan ended up taking an undeserved pasting - stations aired it without proper identification, and then blamed her. What, they didn't screen the piece before airing it? The complaining news directors need a swift kick, and a re-introduction to TV News 101.
The 24-hour spin/news cycle has removed much of the vetting process at local stations, and made network operations pretty sloppy as well. I still rely on print and wire services for news. I DO NOT believe much of anything I see on television news, and only about 50% of what I read in print - particularly in the local rag we refer to as the Richmond Times-Disgrace, where my believability factor runs around 20%....
You make some excellent points. In the case of the VNR post, it is true that the failure to label is most often the affiliate's. My experience was that the affiliate generally did not want to trumpet the fact that the video was not theirs (ever wonder where those palm trees are located in Richmond?).
In the specific case at hand, however, it was also a question of HOW the VNR was fed. CNN had a now-changed policy of feeding VNRs along with other standard news packages, so it was easy to overlook the fact that one was news and another was a news release paid for by a client. Then, add in the fact that the "client" in this case was a federal department using taxpayer funds, and you've got the makings of a scandal that attacks the very existence of VNRs.
Which would have a significant impact on both of our businesses! Our corporate business is almost entirely satellite media tours - basically live VNRs that use station's talent to interview the corporate spokesperson on-site. I'd hate to see SMTs (and VNRs) go, since they're so much easier to do than live sports and long-term news stories...
Post a Comment
<< Home