tvnews.coach

Let’s talk for a moment about propaganda. Oxford defines the term as: “Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Seems like a pretty spot-on way of putting it. Throughout history, mankind has seen propaganda used for what would generally be agreed upon as both good and bad causes. At this moment, there is a significant amount of discussion about the role of propaganda in current and previous administrations at the federal level. Because the word “biased” is contained within the definition of propaganda, we’d suggest that your point of view about propaganda’s role in any administration is likely shaped, in no small part, by your personal bias. And yes, our position is that everyone has some bias in their personal life. Professionals work to leave that bias at home when they are on the job.

But we will leave the debate about how propaganda may have or is now shaping the news agenda for history to sort out at some point in the future.

For a real-world case study in propaganda, let’s go back to the 1940s, right in the midst of World War II. The United States, having entered the Second World War following the Japanese aerial bombing of Hawaii in December of 1941, had a problem on its hands. In the years leading up to the moment when President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that a state of war existed, the question of whether or not the U.S. should even be involved in the war had divided much of the country. Nationalists argued that the war was in Europe (and later in far Eastern Asia), so it should be fought only by the nations involved. We now know that Germany’s Third Reich spent significant sums of money backing anti-war voices here in America. (A great listen about this is Rachel Maddow’s podcast series for MSNBC titled “Ultra." )

Once the world’s war came to U.S. soil, the country had no choice but to fight.

President Roosevelt’s War Department decided to use the most popular visual medium of the time, the motion picture, to create a series of seven films to explain precisely why American boys were being asked to sacrifice for their country. (Yes, mostly males would be drafted to fight, though women would have essential roles in the war effort, both in and out of uniform.) The production of these films would be assigned by General George Marshall, then Chief of Staff of the United States Army, to a newly enlisted Major Frank Capra. Capra was by this point an established and Academy Award-winning filmmaker. The Wikipedia page on how the “Why We Fight” series came to be is an excellent read on how the series came to be made. It includes links to pages for each of the seven films in the series and the ability to watch them, courtesy of the National Archives. If you have never watched them, we’d recommend doing so, if only to understand how the nation was presented with “the case for going to war.”

Why we tell you about the history of the “Why We Fight” series is that we think it is vital for any working journalist to understand why propaganda works and how it can be used as a tool–not just by goverments and their various agencies, but how any entity may promote a particular position through techniques that can cross the ethical lines between conducting public relations and creating propaganda. To be clear, we are not equating PR work to propaganda, but the two disciplines share the goal of influencing public opinion, and both use mass media to shape public perception and behavior. It is the ethics of each that vastly differ in attaining their goals.

We aren’t aware of any cinematic effort to convince anyone of the ideals behind a series that might be called “Why We Are In The News Business.” There have been a handful of movies that have tried to tell the true stories of the power of the printed press over the years. 1976’s “All the President’s Men” dramatized the Watergate reporting of Woodward and Bernstein. Their paper, The Washington Post, would be given the big screen treatment again in the 2017 film, “The Post." In that movie, Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep would dramatize the struggle of editor Ben Bradlee and publisher Katharine Graham’s decision to publish The Pentagon Papers. Actor Michael Keaton has been in two movies as a journalist, playing a fictional one in 1994’s “The Paper” and a real-life one for The Boston Globe, in 2015’s “Spotlight." This is by no means a complete cinematic recounting, because there are other movies with scripts that are at least adjacent to the fourth estate, ranging from 1941’s “Citizen Kane” to 2013’s “Philomena.”

Sol Taishoff, the longtime publisher of the once dominant industry trade publication “Broadcasting” magazine, would label the electronic media as the “The Fifth Estate.” The words would adorn the cover of his magazine, which ceased publication in 2001, after 70 years of chronicling the business of radio and television from their respective births into the nation’s mainstream media. Taishoff is said to have originally wanted to call the weekly magazine “The Fifth Estate” to separate it from the newspaper business industry journal “Editor and Publisher."

In whatever estate it may be known, the electronic press has far fewer titles gracing the silver screen. James L. Brooks’s 1987 “Broadcast News” is listed as a “romantic comedy-drama” that did for TV news what “The Paper” would later do for the newspaper business. Closer to reality, yet still a dramatic interpretation, was George Clooney’s 2005 “Good Night and Good Luck," documenting the battle between CBS News legend Edward R. Murrow and Wisconsin Senator Joseph P. McCarthy. The fictionalized account of the true story of the 60 Minutes story about a tobaccor industry whistleblower is the 1999 drama “The Insider” In 2019, the story of the women who set out to expose Fox News founder and CEO Roger Ailes became the film “Bombshell," so that counts at least tangentially. And the farcical portrayal of a television news anchor by SNL alum Will Farrell became 2004’s comedy hit “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” which would spawn a sequel in 2013, “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues."

It is improbable that these movies motivated anyone to become a journalist, at least in the same way that “Why We Fight” encouraged Americans to understand and support the nation’s war effort. America would send 16 million of its sons and daughters off to serve in either Europe or the Pacific. Many of them would never return. The author Studs Terkel would publish a brilliant oral history of World War II in 1984, carrying the title, “The Good War.” One might suggest that title summarizes the enduring sentiments about the war.

That sentiment was influenced in no small part by the propaganda of the time. These days, the national sentiment about the press, be it either the fourth or fifth estate, is far less generous than it has been in decades past. From the overwrought labels of “mainstream media” to “fake news,” the campaign to cast doubt and aspersion on journalism has been far too effective in sowing distrust about the very people who make it their work to present facts that are obvious and provable.

Understanding why we are in this critical moment is a great reason to watch and study the power of propaganda that is on display in the films of “Why We Fight."

It was May 4th, and we are big enough “Star Wars” fans to spend a chunk of the weekend watching a movie or two from the Disney+ menu. So we were reminded, of course, about “the power of the dark side,” which, of course, is much of what the entire Star Wars ethos is built upon: the fight between good and evil. At the same time, we were reminded of the art of cinematography as it is captured in the movies.

If you are into movies as much as we are, and have sat through the credits of a film in a movie theater more times than you’d care to admit, you’ve likely seen credits for those who work in so-called “B Camera Units.” As the name implies, these are the people who staff a second camera position in making a film, usually employed in situations where multiple cameras are deployed to capture a large scene.

This brings us to today’s idea, which you should consider whenever you find yourself in the field covering a story. Be your own “B Camera unit” by deploying a second camera in your storytelling, even if that camera is the one you already carry on your smartphone.

Not long ago, the standard of “broadcast quality” required cameras that weighed as much as a boat anchor and were as costly as a nice boat for the lake. Technology marched on, and today, most people with a relatively modern smartphone have a video camera capable of making fantastic pictures.

Some MMJs use their smartphones as secondary cameras, not to mention the growing number of them who may use a smartphone as their only video camera. Much like those amazing Apple commercials that state that they were “Shot on iPhone,” it is safe to say that when this is done, a few accessories are needed to help in the shooting process.

One recommendation: If you want more control and quality in your smartphone video, consider downloading the Blackmagic Camera App. It adds many professional video-shooting features to either an iPhone or an Android flagship model smartphone. And the app is the right price, as it is free to download and use.

Our point here is that deploying a “B Cam” can enrich the storytelling process in any situation. From collecting additional b-roll footage from a different angle (seeing the crowded room in a press conference, as well as the standard podium shot) to grabbing some “quick turn” video for your promotions folks or social media posts, having additional video in the storytelling process is never a bad thing. (Anyone who has spent time in an edit bay knows this to be the gospel.)

Did we mention that the selfie camera on your smartphone is also a great way to see what you will look like on camera before a stand-up or even a live shot? And it’s way more accurate than just using a mirror to represent what your main video camera will see.

So, remember that your smartphone is a valuable tool for much more than just calls and texts.

And may the force be with you.

Let’s just say that you might not be one of the almost 13 million people who watched the final round of The Masters golf tournament this past Sunday afternoon. It’s understandable. Not everyone is a fan of golf, let alone this singular tournament that casts the sport in almost a cathedral-like atmosphere amongst the azaleas and pine trees that dot the landscape every April at Augusta National Golf Club. The tournament has had its share of social issues over the years, not having a black man admitted as a member of Augusta National until 1990, some 15 years after Lee Elder would be the first black man to compete in the Masters. Seven years later, Tiger Woods would become the youngest Masters champion at age 21. Women weren’t admitted as members to Augusta National until 2012, and the Masters has remained an all-male tournament, but to be fair, so are all the other annual stops on the PGA tour.

But The Masters still stands unique. Not only in golf but in all of televised sports. The event is scrupulously controlled by the leadership of Augusta National Golf Club, right down to having approval of many aspects of the television coverage seen on ESPN in the early rounds and then on CBS. The latter network has televised every edition of The Masters, since it was first shown on TV in 1956. That’s a remarkable streak, given the escalating values and jockeying for televised sports rights these days.

But tradition matters more in Augusta than in most other venues.

The club controls everything from the announcers who work the event to how many commercials run each hour and who the major sponsors are who get those coveted spots. Even the musical soundtrack is a 44-year-old composition from Dave Loggins. There was even some controversy a few years ago when the green-jacket-wearing gentlemen of Augusta National ordered the sound of birds piped in by the TV production truck to enhance the audio when the real ones living in the pines weren’t singing quite enough. (The golf club strenuously denied any such orders.)

We point all this out, to set the stage for understanding just how damn picky they are about every aspect of The Masters. And so when the game’s drama plays out on the 18 holes of that legendary course, it can unfold a bit differently than other moments in sports that capture the audience lucky enough to witness it in person, as well as the millions watching on television. And the 89th edition of The Masters did not disappoint.

The tournament’s first round ended on Thursday with Justin Rose in the lead. Rory McIlroy didn’t have a great first day, finishing the round tied in 27th place. But McIlroy found his game in the second round to shoot the day’s low round with a score of 66, putting him in third place behind the still-leading Justin Rose. As they do in golf tournaments, the field was whittled down to 53 players who “made the cut” to play on the weekend.

Rory McIlroy would take the lead in Saturday’s Third Round with another sizzling round of 66, while previous leader Justin Rose dropped to a tie for 6th place with an uneven round of 75. It would set up a final round on Sunday with the storyline that McIlroy might finally win The Masters on his 11th try, completing the elusive “Career Grand Slam” feat of winning the sport’s four major tournaments. You can just imagine how happy the folks working on the CBS telecast were about the story about to unfold on Sunday afternoon.

However, golf tournaments rarely play out to any kind of script, and the CBS team had to be ready for anything to happen. After leader McIlroy booted his first two holes on Sunday with dreaded double bogeys, this would not be a simple walk through 16 more holes to win a coveted green jacket and become only the sixth man to win that Grand Slam in his career. While McIroy looked unsteady at first, he would regain his composure on the next two holes–but it was clearly going to be no easy day for the 35-year-old from Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, early tournament leader Justin Rose was methodically working through his final round to retake the lead in the tournament from McIlroy with a birdie on the 16th hole. He would finish his round at -11 under with a lead in the clubhouse. The stage was set for a dramatic finish with McIlroy’s final three holes of play to go.

And McIlroy did not disappoint, battling back on 16 and 17 to make the final hole his chance to hold a one stroke lead and win the tournament. But on the final hole, he pushed his second shot into a sand bunker. A strong recovery to the green put him one single short putt away from making par and securing the win over Rose.

So when he stepped up to make his putt, the iconic voice of CBS’s Jim Nantz set up the moment and then said nothing. The crowd around the hole was silent. Even the birds seemed to stop singing–or they were cued to do so by the tv production truck (we’ll never know for sure.)

Rory McIlroy missed the putt. It would force a playoff to determine who would win this Masters. With the sun still high enough in the Georgia sky, the process of closing out the round, signing his scorecard and returning to the 18th tee, the first playoff hole, to be joined by Justin Rose who was sped out to the spot by a green golf cart, in one of the few times TV viewers would see a golf cart used at Augusta National. Now it would be “mano a mano” as the two men would battle one hole at a time, until one would win the playoff. For a little extra added drama, the last time there was a playoff at The Masters was 2017, and the same Justin Rose playing in this playoff, lost that one to Sergio Garcia–on the first playoff hole on the 18th. We include all of this buildup here so you might understand just how much pressure there was in how this would unfold. The two men made it to the green in two shots, but Rose was further from the hole and would putt first. He would miss his putt for birdie. And so it all came down to Rory McIlroy to do what he had just failed to do a half-hour earlier. Sink his birdie, and win.

As his ball rolled toward the middle of the hole and into the cup, the silence was instantly shattered by a thundering roar from the crowd. McIlroy would throw his putter over his shoulder and fall to his knees. The composure of the previous days and maybe even the years fell from his face as he leaned over into the smooth green, now visibly sobbing.

To match the power of the moment, the CBS announcers, led by the veteran Nantz, said absolutely nothing for over four full minutes. All we heard was the emotion fom the crowd, unwilling to stop showering the victor with their applause and cheers. We’ve been in a few production trucks when covering sports events and we’ve heard producers tell the announcers in their headphones to just “lay out” meaning just let the moment breathe without commentary. We don’t know if producer Jim Rikhoff had to tell Jim Nantz to do so, but whoever decided to do so was correct. And it is because of that (and really the entire Sunday telecast) that we would point those who have to appear on live television for moments like these–remember the true power of not needing to speak.

And in some cases, doing so for what may seem like a very long time. Alas, there isn’t a replay of the entire final hours of the tournament available for streaming. If there were, we would urge you to watch it if you didn’t see it live. Even if you did, it would be worth watching again. Why?

Because we agree with the unnamed executive from another network who told John Ourand of Puck.News: “If you want to teach television, just show the CBS Masters broadcast from the time of the winning putt to the end of the Butler Cabin interview. Absolute perfection in every way….I promise you, there will not be a better stretch of television done in our industry this year.” 

And that’s why Jim Nantz gets to deliver the signature line: “A tradition unlike any other.”

Our "monitoring posts" across the country tracked the severe weather coverage from local television stations from Arkansas to Ohio over the past couple of days. We watched the live streams of stations in various markets, large and small. After hours of viewing, we have some takeaways from what we saw and wanted to share them--in the hopes that it might benefit those of you who are on the front lines and working on such coverage (or may do so in the future.). At the very least, we hope to inspire some discussions about how to improve your station’s severe weather coverage, as we see that coverage as the most important opportunity to serve your audience and perhaps potentially grow it simultaneously.

Before continuing on this topic, let us clearly state that we have the utmost respect for the women and men who staff local television newsrooms and jump at a moment's notice to begin what is known as "wall-to-wall" coverage of severe weather. The meteorologists at these stations can and do help save lives by bringing viewers not only the live coverage of what the radar is showing (often their station's privately-owned Doppler radars with significant pricetags) as well as urging people to take the safety precautions that can be the difference in surviving a direct hit from a bad storm.

Let’s start with preparation. Many stations have adopted the “Weather Alert Day” model of highlighting days when weather is likely to impact viewers significantly. This idea has led to “First Alert Days,” “Weather Warn Days,” “Sky Aware Days,” and the questionably named Tegna variant of “Weather Impact Days.” For some stations, detailed playbooks have been developed for handling a weather alert day, both leading up to it and on the day itself. We’re fans of giving viewers as much advance notice of potential weather that may disrupt their daily routines.

But we have also heard some “nattering nabobs of negativity" (as former Vice President Spiro Agnew once labeled the press) complain that a weather alert is just repackaging of the convective outlooks issued by the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center. If you have never looked at these outlooks, they are the source of the “threat maps” that meteorologists often use. They indicate a scale of risk of severe weather from marginal to high. These frequently cover the part of the country's middle known as “tornado alley.” Let us quickly add that almost any place can be hit with severe enough weather to produce “tornadic activity."

Regardless of how they came into being, the one thing that calling a weather alert day should do for a station is initiate planning for coverage of a severe weather event. Things like making sure at least one meteorologist is on duty throughout the period. However, we increasingly see stations teaming up two mets for severe weather coverage because handling the wave of information that comes in can overwhelm one person working (and speaking) non-stop for long periods. But the orchestration of having two mets handing off back and forth to each other can be tricky.

Several stations we viewed executed the “weather tag team” well in our scanning coverage in several markets. One in particular we’d note was KAIT in Jonesboro, Arkansas, which fielded a team of three meteorologists, including chief meteorologist Ryan Vaughn. The K8 News Storm Team trio followed one of the key concepts we try to impress on stations. That is having one person lead the coverage, and other team members act in a supporting role, supporting the lead presenter and feeding them information throughout the wall-to-wall coverage. The lead meteorologist should be on camera for the majority of the coverage.

We also noted a couple of stations, including Nashville’s WTVF, that would leave the radar on screen for long periods, with no one on camera working the radar, just an off-camera voice narrating the radar image. Having a meteorologist on camera most of the time is to help the viewers understand what they are looking at. We get that a solo meteorologist may be forced into doing this when they have to be both on the air and “drive the radar” simultaneously. However, the viewers need to see their “weather expert" both to understand exactly what they are looking at and to connect to someone who can let them know what they should do.

Another note here, this one for news anchors. Anchors have an essential role in continuing severe weather coverage. They should be the conduits for supplemental information from official sources and handling viewer-generated content, such as photos and videos. One thing we saw happen at a few stations was switching to a camera to show the anchors at the news desk. We strongly advocate that the weather radar should never leave the screen during severe weather coverage. Anchor microphones can be opened to talk with the meteorologist on the air and provide a much-needed break from speaking for a few moments. Also please remember that if your weather warning crawl system includes a small radar “thumbnail” image, it is likely not shown on your live stream. And that live stream is where people who have lost power or are in a safe space are likely watching your signal. We heard many on-meteorologists remind viewers to stay with coverage on their smartphones while they were reviewing safety precautions. This reminded us of legendary meteorologist Gary England of Oklahoma City’s KWTV, who once told viewers in the path of a tornado to “turn the television up real loud” before you head to the basement."

Also, remember that a considerable segment of the audience will be listening more than watching. Consider it vital to provide "radio with pictures" and describe everything you show on the screen in detail. 

Orchestrating this kind of smooth production in an unscripted, “flying by the seat of your pants” manner takes people who respect and trust each other. Successful severe weather coverage is mastered by practicing the drill before you have to do it for real. We believe that producing this kind of coverage parallels a live sports event. Remember that people will constantly join the coverage in progress, just like watching a game. Having a "game reset" is crucial about every twenty minutes. This means when it's possible to take a moment to tell viewers what time it is and give them an overview of the "big picture.” Pull the radar view back to a market-wide image and briefly overview what is happening. Someone just tuning in may not live in the area, which is the hardest hit at that exact moment. Producers, you can help by cueing the meteorologist of the need to do the "reset" by keeping an eye on the clock to remind the meteorologist on the air.

We don't want to channel Alec Baldwin's performance in the movie "Glengarry Glen Ross" too much, but we've always tried to equally impress weather teams with the abbreviation "A-B-T," short for "Always Be Tracking." The most essential information viewers want is not just where the severe weather is at the present moment--but where it is headed and when it will arrive. Using the “storm track" feature of the radar software to show this is what the viewers want. Some meteorologists do this less frequently than they should. Again, this is where producers in the control room can help remind the meteorologist that showing a storm track regularly is what the viewers want to know. Including an updated storm track as part of the “reset” moments we previously mentioned is a good practice.

We also noticed some meteorologists calling up State Department of Transportation highway cameras during severe weather coverage. The extent of these state-owned camera networks varies depending on location, but they can be helpful. That said, we understand that there is a desire to show any video that might depict the weather conditions, but in the darkness of nighttime, these cameras typically drop into a low-light, black-and-white mode and may not show anything of value to the viewer. Shoutout to Nashville’s WSMV for always showing these cameras in a double box with their radar during the coverage we watched.

Speaking of live pictures in severe weather, we must talk about safety and having crews out in severe weather. There is no need to put anyone at risk to cover severe weather. Pre-positioning crews across a market before severe weather hits makes a ton of sense. If it's possible to have a camera pointed outside at the weather while sheltered, that’s great. But no one needs to think they are going to be a modern-day Dan Rather (for older folks) or Jim Cantore (for the younger ones reading this) out in a storm trying to describe how bad it is. There will be plenty to cover when the storm has passed and the damage left behind.

A final point we’d make (and yes, we know we have made many of them) is that the tone of coverage matters considerably. These are high-stress situations for the people working in the television station and for the viewers worried about what could threaten their safety. We would remind those working in local TV stations that this is a time for professionalism to shine. The tone of those on the air has to convey the importance of the moment, and the confidence that the information being delivered is clear, critical, and concise. In our viewing, we were impressed by the work of a few stations in this specific aspect: WTHR in Indianapolis, WKRC-TV in Cincinnati and WSMV in Nashville.

Newsroom leaders must monitor their severe weather coverage and provide real-time feedback to adjust coverage as may be needed throughout the event. Conducting a follow-up review not long after coverage ends is essential to reinforce what worked and fix what didn’t.

Of course, this one post won’t cover every aspect of severe weather coverage. We will discuss some other topics in a future installment here. In the meantime, as the wartime poster in London during the Second World War said it best: “Keep Calm and Carry On."

If you are new here and found this information helpful, we hope you will click on the subscribe button at the top of this page. You’ll get these dispatches sent directly to your email when they are published. If you are already reading this via email, thank you for subscribing. 

We saw where Ginny Sweeney, the News Director of KBMT/KJAC in Beaumont, Texas, posted on LinkedIn an essential reminder for job candidates to include the weblink to their online demo reel right on their resume. Let us second that suggestion! We have also had the frustration of trying to find a job candidate’s reel and being unable to do so because it wasn’t clearly on a resume.

This annoyance could mean the difference between getting a call about a job and not getting one.

We’ll also suggest including the link to your demo reel and your contact information in the signature line of all your emails to prospective employers. The idea is to make getting a hiring manager to reach out to you as “frictionless” and immediate as possible. Your phone number and email make that possible.

Back to the subject of demo reels, here are some more ideas from those of us who have been watching them since they were still on videotapes, which you had to spend time loading and unloading to view each one.

Off the top, having a slate graphic at the beginning of the reel is a good idea. Ensure you include your name, phone number, and email address. Your home address is OK, but probably not really needed. A slate graphic should be on screen for no more than about five seconds. You don’t need a ton of it before you begin showcasing your work, which is the entire point of the demo reel.

Most reels still begin with a montage of quick clips. We understand why this became a standard years ago, but we also challenge its value today. If you want to have an opening montage, it should be brief and mainly there to demonstrate that you can function in different situations in the field, studio, or wherever.

Here is where viewing your reel can go off the rails. You are applying for a job as a reporter, and your reel begins with twenty minutes of you working as an anchor on a New Year’s Eve. We cannot stress enough the importance of having the reel you present to a prospective employer exclusively focus on the job you are applying for. A reporter opening should get a reporter reel, and an anchor job should get an anchor reel. It’s OK if those reels have a sample of other work later on, but after at least four examples of work, that is the primary focus of your reel. A better approach, if you have multiple skills you are trying to showcase, is to build separate reels and put links to both on your resume.

At the beginning of your work examples, if the very first thing isn’t the best piece of work you have done in the past six months, then stop and think carefully about what you are showing. Suppose fifty people have applied for a position. In that case, the person evaluating those applications and viewing the demo reels will likely determine whether you might be in the running within the first minute or so of your reel. You should strive to make the best first impression by presenting your best work as quickly as possible. And best work means your very best work. The one story you would present if you could only show one example of your work to get the job of your dreams.

If this is reporting work and it originally included a live shot, please include the live shot on your reel. But an anchor introduction may be a confusing distraction, so if it’s possible to leave that off the first story on your reel, try to do so. Anchors, please lead with your studio work rather than remote work you may have done at some event, unless that anchoring was on the scene of a major news story.

After the first story ends, there should be no more than about three seconds of black before the next story. More than those few seconds and the person viewing your reel may wonder if it has ended or just frozen in playback. The second story on the reel should be the second-best story you can present, but hopefully one that shows a different aspect of your skills. If you have a reporter reel with three stories in a row covering the capitol, city hall, or the like, we will begin to wonder if you have done any other kind of stories recently. Again, you are trying to demonstrate your range in the role you have been working in and the range you might bring to a new job.

Please avoid including work on a reel you did years ago or in a previous job. The possible exception to that might be some major award-winning work done in the not-too-distant past. Your current work is what you are going to be evaluated on, as the hope is that you have learned and grown your skills in the past year.

We’re fans of displaying your information on screen again at the end of the video. You could leave it up longer here so that someone could dial your phone number or begin typing out an email with your address. We think that about ten minutes is the ideal length of a demo. If someone wants to see more of your work, they will ask for it.

A few things to leave out of your demo: –Stories with an obvious technical problem, such as audio, focus, or anything that distracts the viewer from your work. –Stories without a clear beginning, middle, and end. (You’d be surprised.) –Stories in which you do not appear on camera (Unless you are applying for a job as a photographer or editor.) –Stories that did not air. (Always preferable to see a story as it aired with graphics included.) –Stories that someone else did. (Students, please don’t do this from an internship.)

More thoughts on what a demo reel should contain are available from veteran news executive Anzio Williams, now a senior VP for the NBC Owned stations. His take is available on the company’s excellent “NBCU Academy” website which you can watch by clicking here.

Are you not sure if your demo is strong enough? Ask someone you trust (and not a relative) to watch it and give you honest feedback. This will also be a great opportunity to ensure that others can access and playback your video without encountering any problems with links, passwords, or whatever else can always go wrong with video playback online.

One important point: make sure your demo reel video is always available for viewing. Use a reliable platform such as Vimeo or YouTube to host your video. If you are currently working, we might recommend making it an unlisted or private video, just to keep the questions to a minimum.

And one final thought: update your reel often—at least every four months or so, even if you aren’t actively looking for a job. The same hiring manager might consider you multiple times, and they will want to see fresh work from you if they check back in a few months.

Hope these tips help you build a better reel to showcase your work. Good luck to you!

If you found this helpful, we invite you to share it with anyone who might find it worthwhile. Also, please consider subscribing to our newsletter, which will deliver these posts directly to your email inbox. If you are already a subscriber, we thank you for your support. Please send any feedback to us at editor@tvnd.com

There may be one kind of reporter “package” that we find the most disappointing whenever we see it in a local newscast. It is the story that features soundbites from just one individual. So let’s just call it out right here: if you have a story that only contains sound from one person, then you should consider whether you have a story that is worthy of being a package.

We get it, sometimes only one person is willing to speak on camera at an event, or a group only wants to have one person speak on their behalf. It happens. But that should never mean that you, as a journalist, should accept that as enough for your story. Putting in multiple sound bites from the same person doesn’t magically make your story balanced or compelling. If you find yourself in this situation, you must find another interview to make your story work in the minute and a half you have been given in the rundown. Talk with your producer as soon as possible and discuss whether your story should be cut down to a shorter form, such as a VO-SOT. Or as a last resort, if the story can hold until the next day, when another interview will be possible, hold off on airing the story until you have a complete and balanced story.

Our point is that if you, as a reporter, turn in a story for air that only contains sound from a single subject, you are signalling many things to the audience, and none of them are good. The immediate impression is that you (or your newsroom) were just too lazy (or worse) to get anyone else to be on camera. Always try to find another voice, be it an expert, someone with an opposing point of view, or any person who can add some context and balance to the story.

And if absolutely no one else would speak with you, then by all means, tell the audience what happened. If you have put in multiple interview requests with officials or others, and have not gotten a response to your inquiries, specifically tell the audience that you “have yet to get a response to our request for comment” or whatever the current status of the situation is, as of the time you are on the air.

Of course, a story about a single individual could be a profile-type story that would possibly feature only sound from that person. But even then, try to get the additional sound from other people talking about that person. And no profile should really be complete without sound from other people who know/work with/live with, or in some other way interact with the subject of the profile.

Last Sunday night, CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired a profile story about George Clooney preparing to play the famed Edward R. Murrow in the new theatrical version of “Good Night and Good Luck,” set to open on Broadway. If you didn’t see the story, it is available to watch now on YouTube.

Could they have done a story with nothing but interviews with Clooney? Probably. However, the additional interviews in the story with his producing partner, fellow actors, and the director of the play–all talking about Clooney–make the story far more compelling to watch. Even as the piece clocked in with a running time of over thirteen minutes.

We can hear you saying, but that’s “60 Minutes,” which probably worked on their story for weeks, if not months. And look at all the time it got when the story ran. Fair enough, but the principle of having more than one person speaking in the story is still valid—even if it’s George Clooney.

Don’t think for a moment that this problem only happens in small markets. We have seen reporter stories in larger market newscasts with three or four different sound bites, all from one person, and no other person was heard from in the story. Like, somehow, just having more sound from the one person made it a complete story!

Let’s keep those reporter packages as the complete presentations of any given story that they always should be. Multiple voices need to be heard from on every story, every time. If you can’t get them, rethink what form your story should ultimately take before it goes on the air.

Welcome to the new tvnews.coach. An online offering for working broadcast journalists on “elevating your game” from a team of experienced newsroom leaders. We hope you find these posts helpful and do feel free to share with anyone who might benefit from them. If you’d like, you can get future ones sent directly to your email by clicking the “subscribe” button above. 

So here’s our latest bit of coaching advice:

If you have ever gone to a comedy club, you might have noticed that some comedians walk on stage, and if there is a handheld microphone, they immediately take it off the mic stand and place the stand to the side. Others will leave the mic on the stand and hold on to it—often as if hoping it would help them stand up their act.

Watching recent reels from younger reporters has reminded us of that. Newer reporters often hold on to a handheld microphone (aka a “stick mic,” as grizzled photographers call it) as if it were a lifeline.

Here’s something to consider: Unless you need a stick mic for a specific reason in a story, ditch it and go with a lavalier clipped onto your clothing.

Now, why would we make such a recommendation? We believe that going “stickless” allows you to use your hands in your storytelling. Hands can be communicative as part of a person speaking. Don’t believe us? Watch a sign language speaker communicate by only using their hands.

Okay, so you might not know any sign language, but you know how to point or hold your hands together or apart to indicate a measurement or a distance. Your hands can help communicate way more than a metal tube in your hand—even if it has a mic flag/cube with your station’s logo on it.

Using a lav mic for a sit-down interview is standard practice—or indeed, it should be.

One downside is that the lavalier mic’s small size makes them more likely to get lost on a busy day–so don’t forget them along the way.

Lavalier mics are readily available these days. Every content creator you see on YouTube is likely using a current model from Rode, DJI, or Hollyland. For between $125 and $350, you can get a kit with two small wearable mic transmitters, a receiver, and a charging case. Those mics can be used with a digital camera or a smartphone, making it possible to use an unobtrusive microphone in almost any video you wish to create.

Otherwise, a wired lav with an XLR-style connector can connect to the same plug-in wireless transmitter that a handheld mic can use with a professional-level video camera that most stations use. So there really is no excuse for not having a lavalier available for anyone who is carrying a camera.

And let’s be clear. We aren’t entirely opposed to using a handheld mic. In some situations, they absolutely should be used. In a “scrum” where many people are trying to get an answer to a question, a handheld is an extension of your arm. Handhelds are more resistant to wind noise and weather resistant, so they are probably a better choice in most foul-weather situations.

But the rest of the time, consider giving the lowly Lavalier mic a little more love.

Working as News Directors for local television stations in small and large markets over the years, we received the following phone call from a General Manager or Corporate VP during a newscast more times than we can count.

“What in the world is he/she wearing?”

The impertinence of that question comes from perhaps thinking that we weren’t watching the television in our office or maybe because we answered the phone and so we hadn’t already run into the studio and immediately challenged the talent in question for whatever fashion crime being committed at that moment. Let’s face it, upper management in almost any business is not known for their patience and understanding, especially when managing the softer skills of guiding people on thorny questions like what they should (and shouldn’t) be wearing to work.

Let alone what they should be wearing when appearing on camera.

Recently, we have seen some people appearing in television newscasts who made us start shaking our heads. We wondered if anyone in the newsroom was getting one of those phone calls. Why? Because whatever the anchors or reporters were wearing violated the number one rule of our dress code for television news:

“Never let your fashion choices distract the viewer from paying attention to whatever you are saying.”

It is reasonably simple to follow this rule. If how you are dressed falls into a description that could be summarized in a single word like “professional,” then you are probably complying with the rule and not the subject of one of those dreaded phone calls. You are also more likely to be given positive marks by the viewers. You know, the people we are trying to get to watch us in the first place?

More and more, though, we see talent on camera trying to push the envelope toward making some other kind of fashion statement. The reality is that the only statement your appearance should make on television is this: “Are you listening to what I am saying?” Because in a newscast, credibility and believability are the things that matter most.

Of course, the idea is that as an on-camera presenter, you should look presentable at all times you are on the air. We don’t believe anyone would intentionally try to sabotage themselves by dressing poorly. Conversely, we don’t want to encourage anyone to dress simply to get more likes or followers on social media. Forgive us for sounding like the grizzled veterans that we are–but you aren’t being paid just to create a bigger audience for your little dance videos made in the studio during the commercial breaks.

Back to specific recommendations we have for you in this area. More and more, we are seeing those who appear in the studio attempting to move to the “business casual” fashion genre. This can be dangerous territory–because there isn’t really anything casual about presenting the news. You don’t want to appear in a way that the audience thinks you aren’t communicating to them because your appearance makes them wonder if you are being professional about your job.

One great example to dig into about this idea is to consider the necktie. These days it is not that rare to see a male anchor or reporter going without a tie and having an open collar shirt under a suit jacket or blazer. It isn’t an everyday thing, but more of a testing of the waters from time to time as if almost just to see if the anchor can get away with it. The reality is that you certainly can–but should you? The 1990s arrival of tech executives who defined their style by eschewing a tie and maybe sporting running shoes rather than dress ones, has led to a growing number of men embracing the interpretation that “business casual” meant that no tie was necessary.

We would respectfully disagree.

A news anchor without a tie does appear more casual. But when is the news going to be predictably casual? Do you really want to appear casual when talking about a significant tragedy or when lives are lost? Would you feel comfortable attending a funeral without a coat and tie? If the answer to that question is maybe–consider what level of respect you are showing to the bereaved.

Or perhaos consider the example currently playing out in the NCAA Basketball Tournaments. Some head coaches wear athletic outfits that look more like their players on the bench than those coaches in the more traditional business wear. Which ones can you pick out easier during the game? Which ones seem to win more arguments with the referees? (OK, that last question was more rhetorical because of the sad shape of our bracket selections at the end of the first week.)

We think it’s fine for a basketball coach to wear athletic wear because of the context of the situation they are working in. But more importantly, the audience believes that both fashion choices are acceptable in this scenario. We haven’t seen any research that suggests that is true for viewers watching a local newscast. Plus, wearing a tie also makes it more acceptable to take a jacket off in some situations. Meteorologists in severe weather coverage–we are talking to you specifically here. However, the same applies to anchors appearing in the newsroom and conveying that they are working hard behind the scenes.

For Women, we acknowledge that your fashion challenges are significantly greater–and harder to navigate. There is far less of a go-to “uniform” that you can rely upon daily when looking in your closet. Our experience is that the more significant challenge is appearing professional and not getting criticized for being too much of any particular attribute. Not too revealing. Not too frumpy. Not too trendy. Not too dated. The list goes on and on. Given that we aren’t experts in this area, we would recite the wisdom of one female newsroom leader who delivered this classic quote about a female anchor’s wardrobe: “If she looks like she can do the newscast and then go out dancing without changing her outfit, she needs to change before the newscast.”

And because we aren’t fashion experts, we would point you to someone we think is an expert. Christi Schreiber has been an image consultant to on-camera talent for over 20 years and is a go-to resource for stations and individuals on all aspects of appearance. Her firm, Colour Basis, is excellent for helping with fashion and makeup choices for women and men whose job is to appear on camera. She has solid information to share and does so on her company’s website at Colourbasis.com

Another point we want to make on this subject is that context always matters, even with fashion. Of course, wearing a polo-style shirt is OK if you are doing a live shot outdoors at a local golf tournament. However, please don’t make the mistake of advertising a brand other than your station. You aren’t being presented by Nike or The North Face. Either wear a shirt without a more prominent brand name or logo–or your station’s branded one. And News Directors, you should ensure that everyone on camera has a polo shirt or two for such occasions. (Plus, please make sure it is the current station logo and not one from years ago!)

In fact, there is no better way to make your news team feel more like a team than by providing them with station-branded apparel. Everyone should have, at a minimum, a branded shirt and hat. Anyone who works in the field should have a few shirts. And then, depending on your climate or time of year, jackets of various weights for those crews in the field accomplish the same thing as uniforms do–identify your people and give them instant credibility and visibility as part of your station. It should be part of your station’s marketing budget because it makes your station more visible in the public eye.

We’ll leave you on this topic (for now at least) with the profound wisdom of the legendary rock band ZZ Top. They understood the power of fashion when they sang the lyric, “Cause every girl crazy ‘bout a sharp dressed man.” Obviously, this is also true for every boy and sharp dressed woman as well. Even if ZZ Top didn’t include them in the song.

If you’d like to receive our future posts in your email, please click the subscribe link at the top of this webpage.