Why do local news organizations put their reporters live in the field constantly? Because they can.
Welcome to the world of the dog-lick live shot. Where photographers and reporters commiserate over a common hatred. Going live with a story that could easily be fronted in the studio with the same effect.
Somewhere fifty years ago, some researcher, some now hated researcher, came up with a statistic that stated that viewers responded better to reporters live in the field than in the studio. Sure, this makes perfect sense when the reporter is on the scene of an event that is currently unfolding. Snow. Fire. Shooting. But why make a reporter go live for a national story on the economy? Why make a reporter go live from a scene that ceased to be active 8 hours prior? Because you can?
I can see how this can come off as me bitching about doing liveshots. I'll admit, I hate them. They are the least creative part of a very creative profession. They are where the mind of an engineer (which I do not have) clashes with that of a person who would much rather spend another 40 minutes cutting their package (which is myself)
I do not mind doing a liveshot for breaking news. I tolerate the fact that they are a necessity for weather stories. But to put someone live for the sake of being live is going to be a never ending struggle between the creativity of the reporters and photographers and the hardline ratings and public opinion driven mindsets of management.
Current Jam - The Gaslight Anthem "The '59 Sound"
1 comment:
Therein lays the problem. Reporters are supposed to report. NOT be creative. Just do the fricken job and report, no sensationalism needed thank you.
Post a Comment