A great improvement for TV newscasts?

When? When was this video shot?

Video clips to accompany the talking heads voice should be date-stamped. I hate seeing film with no honest clear idea of when the video was actually shot. And often the same clip is looped multiple times to accompany the voice over

 

Would like to see the same on the internet / YouTube.

 

Absolutely. Most of my Google Search results don't show the age of the item that is listed

On You Tube, on the right side, that column of videos that may be related (in an algorithms mind) to the one I
m watching, indicates the length but nothing about the age of the clip. Often find I've opened very stale material about 'current events'.

 

Supposedly, a station will label older images as "file footage." But it's not always the case.

 

The biggest improvement would be to ban superlatives.

 

Another great improvement would be limiting "Breaking News!" notifications to actual breaking news. I get so sick of seeing something that's days old being referred to as "Breaking News."

 

I think that used to be an NAB Code rule, but all that stuff has slid down the drain in the last 20 years. I can recall a time when some stations always played helicopter sounds (!!!) during a helicopter shot to remind the audience we were watching a shot made from a helicopter. Don't ask me to explain this.

When you think about it, it's all Breaking News. It just may not be new Breaking News.

 

Things heard on NBC Nightly News that don't belong there...

"jaw dropping"
"major drama continues to swirl"
"wild like never before"
"firestorm of controversy"
"Hollywood uproar"
"dominating the buzz"

I could go on...

 

Sounds like the news' equivalent to a laugh track.

 

Yeah, they felt the need to guide the audience.

I recall watching NFL football games, and when instant-replay was first used, they felt the need to lable it on screen with the actual words, "INSTANT REPLAY." And when they started adding more cameras from different angles, again they labeled it on screen with, "REVERSE ANGLE." Today they feel the audience is pretty well conditioned to expecting those types of views, so there is no need to explain it.

Back when helicopters were first used with a camera rolling, there was a segment of the audience that might not have understood what they were looking at. The helicopter sounds quickly put the shot in perspective for the viewer. Now everyone is used to it, there's no need.

Our exposure to new visual presentations can be confusing. I recall hearing about explorers/scientists locating aborigine tribes that had been cut off from the modern world, and when presented with 2D photography, a photo on a flat piece of paper, they could not comprehend that it was representing a 3D scene.

 

Good point. Some of that sports technology was proprietary and some sort of banner was probably mandated by the suits. "Super Slo-Mo" and "Coaches' Clicker" are a couple that come to mind. Madden had to stop using the "clicker" because the NFL claimed proprietary rights.

 

I don't like Breaking News that doesn't have any information. Breaking News! Something happened, we don't know what, but as soon as we do, we'll call it Breaking News again.

 

Buuuut isn't news only "breaking" when it's "new?" If CNN "breaks" the news at 10am on Thursday morning, why is it still referred to as "breaking" at 6pm on Thursday?

I'm just saying there should be a time frame after which news is no longer earmarked as "breaking" on the source that "broke" it. Two hours? 6 hours? No idea what that time frame should be, but it shouldn't be all day or all weekend.

 

I'm a huge fan of Forensic Files reruns on HLN, and I often leave it on all day. Last night, I wasn't paying attention, and Nancy Grace came on. One of the reporters was obviously filming himself on location with a selfie stick, and that was really pathetic. I just Googled this, and apparently this is starting to become commonplace.

 

My guess is it has something to do with ratings.

 

It's breaking for the viewer who might be getting home late at night and it's the first chance to see the news after a long day.

Most definitely, breaking news is exciting!

 

Most of it isn't even "news". it's sensationalism. Designed to keep you docile and ignorant.

 

Cheap, cynical, and geared towards sub-average mentality.

The local news used to at least TRY to have production value. This was when each aspect of TV news production was handled by the person or persons who were well trained and had experience at their craft. Sound, camera, CG, and so on were handled by those who's job it was to do that.
Now multi-tasking, bad automation, inspired by declining revenues and greed have destroyed what were once viable careers. And make things look sloppy and cheap like a teenager's first attempt at uploading their video to YouTube.

 

I think the "Breaking News" was borne out of the O.J. high-speed chase. When the ratings for that went through the roof, programmers decided that whatever the lead story was should be "Breaking News".

As for fake news artifacts, there's an all-news radio station in Philly, KYW, that since its inception in the '60s, has played a tape-loop of a teletype machine behind any of the news anchors. The moment they go to a field reporter, or a commercial, the teletype stops. But whenever the anchor comes back, so does the teletype.

They tried eliminating it once or twice, but always got complaints. The Philly audience hates change of any kind.

Harry

 

You mean appealing to the lowest common denominator hasn't always been the case? Corporate wants profits, and if that means covering stupid **** on a shoestring budget, well that's what you're going to do if you want to stay employed.

 

But what I was primarily commenting upon was about the decline in trained, task-specific techs who have LOST employment BECAUSE of the shoestring budgets and bowing down to cretin mentality- not to mention employment-killing technology that has turned production values into amateur hour.

 

Why? Did some viewers actually believe the reporters were floating in the air on their own power?

Oops . . . sorry . . . you did tell me not to ask . . .

 

The fact that CNN had this on tells you everything you need to know. They need to make all news ad free and only provided for a public service. The fact that companies make money from ad revenue to report the news is a disgrace.

 

I've hated the grainy wobbly Skype? that has become commonplace when some distant talking head is answering the anchor's questions.

 

I suppose I'm really an outsider when I say I don't like any newscast which has commercial interruptions. In Canada we pay taxes to have our CBC, but its newscasts are as larded with commercials as the private channels