Typical media self-involvement. They think, they make this important. Notice, they don't even say the shots were fired at them. No, the shots were fired on another street, presumably by cars that had passed and then turned. Then this "reporter" and "photographer" run into somebody's house and the cops have to escort them from the area.
Used to be TV reporters were not supposed to run away.
Anybody who has experienced military basic training would know that when under fire (which this crew was not), the last thing (and the dumbest) one should do is run.
I put the word "reporter" in quotes because mic holders doing stand ups are not reporters. Live stand ups are show biz, not reporting. They are ridiculous, add nothing to a story and invite the kind of behavior Kelly described.
But TV has this obsession with going LIVE-LIVE-LIVE, standing out where nothing is happening, reading barely rewritten wire copy or press releases, and maybe getting a sound bite or two from passersby.
And maybe the treatment of so-called "reporters" during "live shots" is an indication of general public contempt for the media, especially local TV news.
Unless they served in the military prior, street reporters aren't given military training, such as what to do when being shot at, or around.
So because they're doing their job, they are somehow inviting to be embarrassed or physically assaulted? And because you don't think a station should report live in the field, then reporters are fair game for jackasses? That's like saying a woman who wears fashionable clothing by today's standards, is asking to be assaulted.
The reason stations push for their reporters to be live, is viewers, when researched, believe the credibility of a station or network is better over another station that isn't live. Just because you are cynical about their motives is a minority opinion.
Sounds like you speak from a like mind. But I wouldn't go so far as to call whackadoo's and jackasses that assault or harass reporters doing their jobs "general public".
I put the word "reporter" in quotes because mic holders doing stand ups are not reporters. Live stand ups are show biz, not reporting. They are ridiculous, add nothing to a story and invite the kind of behavior Kelly described. But TV has this obsession with going LIVE-LIVE-LIVE, standing out where nothing is happening, reading barely rewritten wire copy or press releases, and maybe getting a sound bite or two from passersby. .
You should have taken some social psychology classes in school. They are part of the general public and their "acting out" does reflect a climate of public opinion.
Activists can cry "equal pay for equal work" but this one of any number of reasons why work is seldom equal. And it's highly irresponsible to send anyone into a high-crime area, to report on an outbreak of drive by shootings, without appropriate training on what to do when shot "around" or any other dangerous situation.
When researched? Researched how? Asking people - hypothetically - if "live" means better credibility. Since everybody does these "live shots" there's no way to asses in a real world context how live affects credibility. Besides, the only thing "live" is a person standing outside someplace (with nothing happening). The B-roll of something actually happening is hours old. So something happens and then a van or truck stays parked, with a crew on the clock, for an entire shift so they can so "live" at 11pm. Idiotic.
You should have taken some social psychology classes in school. They are part of the general public and their "acting out" does reflect a climate of public opinion.
Oscar:
You have managed to insult a lot of professionals.
Television Reporters do not read "barely rewritten wire copy." They get the information by interviewing the people involved. They write their own copy (often sending their copy to the wire services). After they have gathered enough information, they do a "live shot" to report what they have discovered.
Live television (and radio) news reporting works. As some stations proclaimed decades ago: "First, fast and factual."
My experience and observation is different from yours. If you consider attended a staged event (speech, press conference, ribbon cutting) as "gathering information," OK. If you count man on the street interviews as "persons involved," OK. And I will allow for some exceptions. Dinner hour news is not as flagrant an example of TV mic holders attempting to create the appearance of reporting as the early morning local news shows where mic holders stand where something happened yesterday (even where nothing happened yesterday), reciting information from some other source. And yes, I've heard live shots when I was looking at the same wire story I was hearing "from the scene.".
David, if you find your local news in Palm Springs a good use of your time, by all means keep watching.
Apparently we have different criteria for what qualifies as "reporting." I went to the website for your local stations to see the stories you mentioned (apparently one newscast is produced for two different stations).
- Live report on reopening of flood damaged I-10 at Desert Center. Reporter on scene, 60 miles from studios, interviewing construction crew doing rebuild and a police officer in charge managing reduced-lane traffic.
They probably got an announcement saying the road was open. That was covered in the lead-in. The piece itself was yet another MOTS (man on the street) segment with people complaining about how bad traffic was during construction. Dog bites man; traffic is always bad during construction.
- Interview in a Palm Desert location with the County Supervisor about when full repairs would be completed.
Politician getting himself on the tube.
- Interview at Chiriaco Summit (nearest gas and food) about how the closure had affected business.
Restaurant owner complaining about how bad business was when the road was closed. Of course it was.
- Report from Banning (40 miles away) on a court case involving an abduction and assault. Interview with prosecuter.
I couldn't find this one on the website but sounds like another politician getting himself on TV (and attempting to influence the jury pool). Typically, local stations have a pronounced pro-cop, pro-DA bias because that's who keeps feeding them (just like the bears in Yellowstone). In Canada, this would be illegal. The prosecutor would be sanctioned or disbarred and action could be taken against the station.
- Report from the scene of the newest wildfire, with interviews with local resident and fire official. Also included several shots of how smoke was seen "down in the Valley"
More MOTS plus stock footage.
- Sports director's live interview with a local who just won a world championship prize fight.
A cheap and easy get. I wonder if they will interview this guy when the results of brain damage become evident.
- Report on status of court case involving street racing with a fatality including station's own footage of the incident and of illegal street racing in same location.
A chance to fill time by recycling old, stock footage. Their own footage or somebody's smartphone footage?
- Puff piece on dog show with cute pets and brief interviews with pet owners and fanciers.
Right, puff piece. Canned footage and interviews?
- Extensive weather report including several full motion shots of the day's unusual weather (low temperatures for the season and rare winds and dust).
Send somebody out to take pictures of the weather. Yawn.
- Video as part of story on several day closure of a freeway access while construction of new ramps and interchanges are being done; status on whole job.
Handout from highway department plus some stock footage (likely from the highway department, too).
I can't tell David whether you think this station is good or the newspaper is really bad. If you want a good paper, read the Times.
Funny thing: Some people here think people who stand behind a mic holder doing a live shot and jump and wave are wackos. But do it on the Price Is Right and you're cool and likely get to contestants' row. And people were encouraged to jump and wave during Letterman (and not called wackos). How is a live shot any different? It's all TV.
Funny thing: Some people here think people who stand behind a mic holder doing a live shot and jump and wave are wackos. But do it on the Price Is Right and you're cool and likely get to contestants' row. And people were encouraged to jump and wave during Letterman (and not called wackos). How is a live shot any different? It's all TV.
.
No, it is not... unless you are a hopeless cynic and died in the wool misanthrope.
A writer for a paper writes and the writing is printed. The equivalent function in TV is to gather the facts and then deliver the information with a microphone and camera in verbal and pictorial fashion. A good TV reporter can make a story much more vivid with the use of pictures, newsmakers and on the spot images.