Thanks!

What I need to keep in mind is that it’s just as important to tell a compelling, clear, creative story in a live shot, and that I need to find ways to instill all the energy I get from the rush of knowing I “need an on-set for the 5, package for the 6, on this story with these sources with this video” into every live shot and finding the best way to show our 4:30 am-7 am viewers something new.

But I still wouldn’t mind a dayturn shift, sometime soon.

This week I also had my first morning live shot shift for this session- it was on Tuesday. I had two story ideas prepared- one I had a SOT and video before, but the other had a better day angle, so we went with the second. The upside was that I had checked with a source beforehand and OK’d a good location for the live shot, but the downside was that I didn’t have that extra SOT/video. Things went OK, but I need more for next time. Next Tuesday, I’ll be doing a live shot about the founder of TOMs shoes coming to give a talk at MU, and I’m hoping to work in a live interview, if he’s willing to get up early enough! I’m also working on borrowing some TOMS shoes to show in another hit, and perhaps some video and maybe another live interview with the founders of a TOMS group at MU for earlier in the show. Hopefully all goes well!

And on Friday I anchored the morning show for the first time. I was pretty nervous- it’s an hour-and-a-half show, and I didn’t really know what to expect going in. But it turned out to be a ton of fun- I anchored with morning anchor Lauren Whitney, who was really great about showing me the ropes and was fun to work with. You can check out the video here. The show went smoothly, for the most part- but now I really need to work on the performance aspects like my breathing, not making  a “tskt” noise when I open my mouth, and taking less time to pause in between stories. I also want to breathe more life into my storytelling while anchoring, and now that I’m not as uptight I’ll be able to use the computer behind the anchor desk to look for more breaking news on Twitter or elsewhere on the Web that might happen during the show. It was an exciting opportunity!

This week promises to be pretty busy. I’m working on solidifying a story to produce for Discovery Tech, and I’ll also be putting together a story for Friday Night Fever, along with doing my normal Tuesday morning live shot, classwork, etc. But I’m excited about the way things are going, and am excited to work on and pop out some great stories this week!

Apparently, the Wall Street Journal will be launching a new twice-a-day Webcast on Thursday. The on-air personalities will be current reporters, editors and columnists— translating their current skills to a new mode of presentation.
The Wall Street Journal needs to start doing something like this. A lot of traditionally print-based publications need to do something like this. In fact, all journalistic outlets need to start transcending their traditional mediums— you need to be able to do it all. Writing, video, audio, multimedia, interactives. You need to be able to give it however people want to get it.
And while learning new things while already busy with our current jobs is stressful and can put a lot of extra pressure on reporters, editors and newsroom managers, it will as a whole be better for journalism— and for our viewers, readers, listeners and visitors. As all outlets begin to be able to “do it all,” competition will be over how accurate and high in quality content itself is. TV stations won’t have the monopoly over video and newspapers won’t be the ultimate authorities on breaking city council reports.
Now, instead of competing with the other TV stations in the area, there will be competition to succeed among all media outlets.
This ignores the argument that maybe “trying to do too much” means we don’t do what we do best as well anymore. That’s fair- certain newspapers/TV stations/etc have niches and it’s illogical to argue that we could turn all outlets into do-it-all-be-it-all stations…But that’s not completely what I mean. I’m just saying that we need to learn and use all the tools we can no matter what our medium is.
Shooting video, editing audio and mastering AP style aren’t our jobs anymore- they’re just basic skills that help us to better our reporting. Because the reporting is what matters- finding the truth, organizing it and presenting it in the best way possible.
The goal: just tell it the best way we can.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know! Feel free to comment or email me at erica.zucco@gmail.com!

911 calls. Should they be posted? First off. I had some questions about the legality of doing so. Al’s Morning Meeting suggests the following ethical questioning process:

1. Does using the call help better tell the story in a way that is not sensational?

2. Can the 911 tape illuminate broader issues about the 911 system and its effectiveness?

3. Can using the tape help critically examine the 911 system or help illustrate how effectively the system works?

4. Other concerns include the age, mental capacity, community prominence and situational stress of the caller, and the potential impact on the caller and family.

I think that posting this specific call wasn’t a big ethical question. Michael Jackson is an internationally reknowned pop star- he is by the very definition of a public figure, a public figure. And the call didn’t really violate the caller, who the entire time is as calm and collected as possible. But I think there are times when this isn’t okay. And I’d like to make a point of caution about using the Web to post things like that….

In class, Greeley Kyle talked about how there was a reporter who had a camera in a courtroom and videotaped testimony about a rape and murder scene. He decided not to broadcast any of it, but to put it online. The web is no longer a narrowcasting, or secondary medium! Some people only get their news from the Web. And while this method protects TV watchers from the graphic testimony, it does not protect the privacy of this individual or their family.

I think we need to be incredibly careful about how we use the Web for extras. It can be used for a lot of really amazing things- but just because its not on TV, doesn’t mean not as many people are seeing it. In a lot of cases, there are more.

1.) In class, we discussed a situation where you as a photographer have exclusive video, but it’s of a man finding his son and two of his friends tragically dead in the trunk of a car. You also have video of the discovery’s aftermath— but so do all the other stations. We had to decide what to show, and to think not only about the child and his father and his family— but about the viewers, the entire community, the station, your stockholders… and to be honest, it wasn’t an easy decision for me, personally, at all. On one hand, lots of people were at the discovery, so sharing that video is in a way allowing viewers to “stand in,”— but on the other, the sheer expression of grief and horror on the father’s face is, in a sense, more graphic than if you were actually to show the body. You are the only ones with exclusive video, so this would give you a leg up on the competition, but the community might not even appreciate you sharing the video. There’s no easy answer (well, obviously). But that leads me into my next thought…

2.) I am an incredibly emotional person. I connect incredibly easy with most people, and anything can affect my emotions. Easily. I can conceal my emotions if I choose to- I’m not real into crying publicly or showing anger- but I always feel them. Deeply. And I wonder if perhaps this is a worse bias than having a strong political leaning- as if I’d identify too strongly with a survivor or victim or criminal or subject of an interview to be objective……or if it helps— if connecting means caring, and caring means putting out a better story. I think it can be a combination of both…but I also think that I need to be very, very careful as I begin my career.

Before this class, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to do television reporting. I figured I’d try it out. But things I’ve learned and watched and done this semester have convinced me. The sheer power, effects, and potential of TV news to make a difference is inspiring….and though I still have so, so much to learn, I know that I want to do this.

But I know that there are some things I won’t do to make it. In class, Greeley talked about how his station in Memphis was “the gentlemanly” station- that they didn’t get in people’s faces or show bodies on TV. That is the kind of station I need to work at. Television stations don’t exist  independently of the community; they’re a part of it. And viewers need to trust the station, and know that it cares about them.

I will be persistent. I will be honest. I will be thorough. But I will never do something for a story that will make it so I can’t sleep at night. And I think I’ll always be sensitive and emotional about the subjects and the people I’m covering- but I need to use that quality in a way that’s positive and professional- that will better each story, and do something for the viewers, the community, the station, the subject, and the stockholders.

Why’d my eyes open? Because I realized how many worlds more productive your shifts can be when you come prepared. On Monday, I covered a story about rain gardens- and luckily I had my rainboots so when I went out to shoot video in the rain, I could get right in the gardens without muddying up pumps or, you know, tripping. On both days, I came with my own story ideas- this ensured I was able to cover something that interested me and that I already had sources and information set up for. On  Tuesday, I did not bring a ponytail holder or an extra change of clothes, and it was very, VERY hot- a case where I wished I could have changed and was not prepared.

So this weekend, to prepare for Tuesday’s first reporting shift, I’m putting together my reporter’s briefcase- with everything from Kleenex and breath mints to meter change and Chex bars. Having this stuff on hand makes the entire experience runs smoother- and saves time, too.

I also learned that sometimes with a dayturn you might not be able to get ahold of the “best” source for your story- something that’s both frustrating and understandable. But I think that in these next few shifts, I’ll learn a lot about finding more unusual but still applicable sources- people that tell the stories in a different way than an official might.

My goal for my first reporting shift is to use primarily natural sound and video to tell the story, and not rely on my voice telling the story as a crutch. We’ll see how it goes!

I think it’s all three. Here’s why:

1.) Journalism- Journalists gather information, select through it, comprehend it, understand it, and share it. Just like the makers of “the photo stream” do with news stories.  They sort and sift through a lot of news stories and select those that are most talked about and interesting and share them- news you can use for the visual news consumer.

2.) Entertainment- Pictures are, generally, fascinating and entertaining to look at for many people. And anyone, whether they care about current events or not, could log onto “the photo stream” to check out the way “today” is arranged, visually. If you want quick headlines and your daily dose of important news, “the photo stream” isn’t necessarily your way to get it- you select stories based on the nature of each photo, not a predetermined list of “here’s what’s current” and “here’s what’s important.”

3.) Marketing- Again, it’s all about being eyecatching. In order for a story to get a lot of play from “the photo stream,” the picture must be captivating. And that brings up the question of representation- should “the photo stream” use the photo most appropriate to, in summary, tell the story? Or a picture that might represent the most minute detail, but is most visually interesting?

This is one of the more interesting news aggregators I’ve seen. I think a future post might be about some others I appreciate- and some I don’t.