[9/97]

Compiled by Ted Wilson

Riddle me this: What do you get if you have three producers and give them identical people and elements to work with; stories, video, interviews, reporters, photographers, etc.?

Answer: Three different looking newscasts.

People in TV news can debate endlessly what makes the best newscast. It all depends on your "news philosophy." Do you get the to live shot as soon as possible, do you build elements for the anchor lead-in, which angle do you take on a story, and so forth.

The Producing Commandments are not meant to answer those questions. And, it is not meant to be a journalistic code of ethics, although that is certainly part of it. Producing is a craft and an art that has its own unique demands. Regardless of what a station’s "news philosophy" is, there are things we all need to do to make the best possible newscast, regardless of how we envision it.

The list covers a lot of subjects. Some of them are technical. Some are practical. Some are about principals. Some are about leadership. A producer without anchors, reporters, photographers, editors and assignment editors is pretty useless.

The list is far from all-inclusive. No special significance should be read into order of items. Breaking anyone of them can be a miserable experience. I have no doubt everyone who reads this will see a few things they think should have been included, even though there are a lot more than just the classic "10" commandments listed.

The List is just a starting point for good producing. It is a unique job. We are expected to be calm and creative under tight deadlines. We are expected to make decisions without knowing all the facts. We are expected to be tough minded and at the same time make the newscast a collaborative effort. But all those things are part of what makes the job rewarding.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to the list. You will see their names next to the "thou shall" and "thou shall nots." In a few cases, I have left names out because more than one person contributed the idea.

THE COMMANDMENTS LIST

• Thou Shalt tell the truth, from all sides of a story.
• Thou Shalt use thine creativity, curiosity and intellect to make the most interesting and informative newscast possible.
• Thou Shalt always be thinking of thine viewers.
• Thou Shalt win the lead.
• Thou Shalt never assume anything. (Deb Del Valle)
• Thou Shalt make thine anchor/s look good.
• Thou Shalt not holler in the anchor's ear.
• Thou Shalt write correctly, clearly, and with originality.
• Thou Shalt Not raise questions thou dost not answeror at Least acknowledge. (Scott Libin)
• Thou Shalt bring at least one original story idea to work every day.
• Thou Shalt borrow from the Boy Scouts and "Be Prepared." (Scott Libin)
• Thou Shalt have a backup plan and a backup plan to the backup plan. (Deb Del Valle)
• Thou Shalt know thine own backup plan as thou knowest thyself.
• Thou Shalt make sure everyone knows the backup plan and how to make it work.
• Thou Shalt treat everyone in the newsroom with respect. (Deb Del Valle)
• Thou Shalt praise even the smallest achievements by thine co-workers.
• Thou Shalt make sure stories fulfill the promise made in a tease or promo.
• Thou Shalt Not drop stories that have been teased or promoted for this doth make viewers very angry.
• Thou Shalt use correct spelling in all chyrons.
• Thou Shalt always call any phone number you give on TV and make sure it works and is correct. (Deb Stanley)
• Thou Shalt make sure live shots are really ready before putting them on the air.
• Thou Shalt liberally dose with skepticism disease of the week cure stories. (Stephen Knifton)
• Thou Shalt laugh at at least one joke every day.

Ted Wilson is senior producer at WKRC-TV, Cincinnati, Oh.

[7/99]

By Alice Main (webdesign@mainhat.com)

A producer I know, when reminded for the twentieth time to "think outside the box," gazed up at the newsroom ceiling and asked, "What's INSIDE the box that everyone's so afraid of?"

The ceiling, unfortunately, had no answer. Several years have passed since that day, and I still can't help but smile when I hear anyone talk about The Box.

The Box, it seems, would hold all that is conventional and thus stale. The Box was to be shunned.

But I wonder. What really is in there?

I find it stored away in a little-used closet behind the printers in the newsroom. Next to it, typewriters are stacked forlornly, dragged out unwillingly by people who are panicked because the computers have crashed.

The Box is larger than I expect. I try to tilt it on its side, but it's too heavy. Before I rip off the tape, I inspect the cardboard. Holes have been punched in it, on every side, ringed by dirty fingerprints.

I stand on a chair to reach the top of The Box. The tape comes off easily, in one piece. I fold back the flaps to find the contents have been packed in crumpled wire copy from the days when the AP and UPI sent reams of paper with giant, smudgy type that an anchor could truly rip and read. Underneath are some videotapes, randomly packed, along with a few loose scripts. A few layers down, I find The Stacker. You know, The Stacker, from endless job postings, the one who "need not apply." He was not surprised to see me.

"Everyone comes back to The Box eventually," he says with a knowing grin.

"What do you mean?" I ask.

"The most important things are in here," he replies confidently.

(Loser, I think. You'll never get out of The Box.)

The Stacker is a mind reader.

"Oh, I leave The Box whenever I like. I made those holes you saw in the cardboard. It's easy to get in and out. But I spend most of my time inside."

"Why, when you know all the wonders that await you outside The Box?"

"The real wonders are in here," he answers. "Look at this," he says, holding up a sheet of blue paper. Leaning forward, I see that it's one of the carbon copies of a script. "This is a story about a suspect in a murder investigation. The word 'allegedly' is never used, but somehow, the story still doesn't convict the guy."

"Yes, but that's so basic," I protest, unimpressed.

"Is it really? Here," he says, brandishing a videotape, "is a newscast in which all the murders, shootings and car crashes are not lumped together in one endless parade of death stories."

I climb into The Box so we can speak face to face. "I am not surprised that you can stack a show," I say. "You are, after all, The Stacker."

"Stacking is underrated as a producing skill," says The Stacker. "It is thought that one can be taught to stack a show in one week of a producing class. But it is an evolving skill, one that must ebb and flow with each day's news load."

"Uh-huh." I'm unconvinced.

The Stacker rummages in the wire copy at his knees and plucks out another videotape. "Here's a newscast in which the last story in the first block was really sad, but the anchors didn't have to move right into a tease on a water-skiing squirrel. And how about this story, on a meeting at City Hall?"

"What's so great about that?" I ask, incredulous.

"No meeting video," he says.

"Okay, I'm listening."

The Stacker picks up another tape. "The reporter in this story used audio from his subjects to tell the story and ended up with almost no track at all."

I am bewildered. "What is this stuff doing inside The Box? I thought those things were outside The Box."

He smiles broadly. "The Box is bigger now. What was outside The Box just a few years ago is inside now."

I nod slowly.

"So you appreciate what is good. But you're still a stacker," I reply. "And that's just not enough. A Producer has to be a Writer, Juggler, Manager, Promoter, Coach, Idea Factory and Amateur Graphic Designer. And a Journalist, of course. A Stacker just takes the day's news and assembles it."

The Stacker is visibly shaken. His mouth hangs open for a few seconds. Then he closes it into a hard, thin line, clenches his jaw and narrows his eyes. "I am one of the people who comes up with good story ideas at the editorial meeting. I watch the competition and read newspapers. My stories are clear and concise. I develop compelling opens to all my newscasts. I write great teases that don't give everything away. I talk to my reporters during the day to make sure I know how their stories are coming together. I discuss unusual parts of the newscasts with my anchors ahead of time, so they're not taken by surprise. And I parcel out pieces of a story to my anchors, so they do more than just read intros and tags."

"If you do all those things, then why are you known as The Stacker?"

"Because I refuse to forget the fundamentals. As I said, I leave The Box often enough. I do it when I am faced with a mundane story and would like to find a new way to tell it. Or when I have a story with absolutely no video and need a creative solution. But the basics of storytelling can still be found here, inside The Box."

Silently, we regard one another.

"It sounds to me like you're a Producer, not just a Stacker."

"Thank you," he chokes. "No one's ever said that to me before."

We shake hands and I hoist myself out. I drag the box out into the middle of the newsroom. And I leave it open, so that everyone can climb in, nose around and meet The Producer.

(From Communicator magazine, ©1999; reprinted with permission.)

[8/96]

By John McQuiston and Deb Stanley

WHEN THE RATINGS SUCK
By John McQuiston (johnmcq@hotmail.com)

Between 1988 and 1991 I worked at WMDT-TV in Salisbury, Maryland, a station whose ratings were so low management refused to let us see them. But we all knew that, according to the ratings, we were the fourth place station in a TWO station market!

WBOC-TV in Salisbury was the first television station on Maryland's eastern shore and remained its only one until WMDT came along around 1980. As you can imagine, changing decades of viewer habits wasn't going to come easily. And it still hasn't happened.

A great example of how the community viewed the two stations came from a photographer of ours who had grown up in Salisbury. His mother would tell him she had missed something he had shot for our station because she was watching "Salisbury news," meaning WBOC. What were we? Well, whatever we were, we weren't Salisbury's news—as the ratings told us over and over again.

We weren't underdog. We were underfoot.

How did we keep morale up? Several ways.

First, most of us were young and ignorant. While ignorance may not be bliss, it's sometimes helpful. This was the 160-somethingth market and we were there to learn how to make television news as much as anything. I didn't expect to make a career working in Salisbury and I directed my focus toward improving my skills so that I could get a job in a better market.

Second, we had a good staff. Our news director at the time Ray Carter (now ND at KSL in Salt Lake City) had an eye for talent and he managed to collect quite a bit of it in our crummy little newsroom. I knew I was working with people who were destined for good jobs in bigger markets. In fact, while I was there we had one producer leave for a job in Tampa and another one move on to Baltimore. Two photographers got jobs in Richmond, Virginia and their replacements later moved to the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania market. Stories like these and of other people "getting out" and making it to major markets inspired us to believe that someday, somehow, it could happen to us. That and the competition among ourselves in the newsroom to do the best work went a long way in helping us ignore the beatings we took in the ratings.

Third, when we did look at the competition, we compared product not ratings. Our station's upper management put almost no effort into promoting our news and didn't even seem to care if more people watched. The fact that they wouldn't let us see the ratings helped us to forget them. We serfs in the newsroom couldn't control whether people watched our news anyway. We could only control what our news looked like. So that's where we directed our attention. Two years running we won the Associated Press award for Outstanding News Operation despite WBOC's massive advantages in staff size and equipment. One year we won the Associated Press award for best spot news coverage even though we didn't have a live truck and WBOC had three!

My point ("and I do have one" as Ellen Degeneres likes to say) is that you can survive and even flourish working at the "dog" of your market. But you can't worry about the ratings. It's not your job anyway. Your job is to produce an informative newscast that will be interesting enough that someone tuning in will stay and watch. Let the big-bucks upper management people figure out how to get people to tune in.

MORE ABOUT WHEN THE RATINGS SUCK
By Deb Stanley(timinggirl@aol.com)

I went to a wedding in Dallas 2 weeks ago for my former News Director/Anchor in Lubbock. While a group of us TV people were standing around, one guy, from the old days, walks up and goes "Wow, we were all together when we were 4th out of 3." Our 6 PM news was behind the CBS, NBC and Star Trek on the Indy in town. But we had a good group of people.

By the way, the station is now very close to becoming number 1. Hope it's not because we're all gone.

And one more note: we won not only won a Best Newscast (from AP) while we were there but several other major awards. Maybe that helped us keep going. We were very proud of our work, even if most of the market wasn't seeing it.

Deb Stanley works at KMGH-TV, Denver, Co.

[5/97]

By Tristan Davies et al.

LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF LIVE
By An Anonymous Producer

I produce the 5:30 & 6 PM newscasts for a small market station. Every day, my news director says,"so where are we going live tonight?" So I know the pressures of management mandate. But as far as I'm concerned, we should NOT go live just because we have the ability to put our truck out there. Granted, there's not a lot of exciting, breaking news in our viewing area, so to hold out for something huge would be stupid—we'd never be out there! But to go live from some medical conference (a real snoozer) or from the scene of where something happened hours before, is a waste. I argue with my ND about it on a daily basis, unless there is some worthwhile event going on.

For shops in which the mission is to BE LIVE IN EVERY NEWSCAST: It may help to think of the live locations as simple backdrops for the reporter, instead of thinking of them only as someplace where something is happening NOW. Would you consider putting the reporter in the newsroom to deliver a story? Probably. So why not in front of the hospital where so-and-so is being treated? Why not in front of the house where a 5-hour standoff ended 3 hours ago? While it's always preferable to do a live shot where something's actually happening NOW, a successful producer needs to buy in to the station's philosophy, and deliver on it in the best way possible. If the news director feels that LIVE is the way to go, then it is our job to make it happen in the most compelling manner possible. It is not our job to fight the philosophy. Some of us will be news directors someday, and THEN we can set the tone for our own news operations.

LIVE SHOT/REPORTER INVOLVEMENT
By Tristan Davies

How do you get your reporters and photographers to become actively involved in their live hits, and to accept the responsibility for finding the right place to be live?

My station has been doing live shots forever, but getting reporters to interact with their surroundings is still a challenge. It takes a reporter who's secure enough to walk and talk simultaneously, a photog who's willing (and steady enough) to get off the tripod even with a cable attached to his/her camera, and it requires firm guidance from producers over a long enough period that it all becomes a habit.

It's not necessarily the reporter's responsibility to choose where the live shot happens; as a producer, I also have a say in what I think makes the most interesting background (e.g., "at the murder scene, not the police department!"). Of course, I'm flexible, especially when the reporter is gunning just to make slot!

As you talk with reporters during the day (you *do* talk with them during the day, don't you?), try suggesting props they can use as part of their live shot: crime scene tape, a printout of someone's record. It's your show: take the lead in doing whatever you can to make it look and move the way *you* want!

How do you coordinate the info in the reporters sot with the info in the throw, the info in the reporter's live hit, and the info that can be contributed by the anchor?

Two steps:

1. know the bare bones of the story before the reporter leaves, if at all possible! That way, you can write a lead-in and toss. If I don't know much, I write a short, fairly generic script.

2. When the reporter calls in close to air time, read them what you've written and ask "is this OK? what should I change?" At my station, this usually happens within 45 minutes of air, when a reporter calls in supers.

Do you engrave procedures in stone? i.e. a set time by which reporters must be ready to be on location, figuring out what they're going to show the viewers? or, a system whereby there's a procedure of who calls who and who decides what?

No. News is so changeable, there are few rules that seem to work. You should trust your reporter and photog to be aware of what time it is, and emphasize the importance of frequent communication, especially as air time draws closer.

There are two situations where i worry most:

1. I haven't heard from a crew at all (despite repeated pages), and it's 30 min. or less to air.

2. More than one live shot is coming in on the same receiver, which means feeds need to come in earlier.

Otherwise, I give my crews room to do what they need to do; in turn, they've learned that if I'm calling them, i must really need to talk to them right then!

Even so, there are days when the conversation goes like this:

"Hello, live van 1." "Hi, it's bob. are you guys OK?" "Well, we're working on it! I just started editing. We'll try to make it. I'll call you back!"

This gives me a quick impression, and if they don't call me back, I call them!

This feeds on itself by leaving the impression with our ground troops that we producers inside the newsroom are going to somehow tell reporters what to do, what to say and where to be out in the field (a pretty silly notion, when you think about it).

Not a silly notion at all!

Sometimes the choice of where to do the shot is obvious (say, the huge flaming tire dump). Sometimes it's not (the funeral home, or the school the young victim attended?). But in every case, you're the producer. That means you have the big view of the newscast, and you should have a vision of what the show should look like. Talk to your crews, listen to their opinions, and encourage them to think creatively, but don't be afraid to tell them what to do!

Whatever you do, talk to them, and listen to them!

[4/97]

By Various Contributors

CARE & FEEDING OF YOUR MEAT PUPPETS
By An Anonymous Anchor

Talent. Sometimes the title fits. Sometimes it fits like a bad super. I'm Talent. I'm a meat puppet. I'm an anchor. I'm also an experienced producer and news director. I've worked in shops where the chemistry between anchors and producers is so bad the directors had to add promos during breaks so the anchors and producers could finish yelling at each other. But I've also worked at stations where they work as a synchronized team and put on good television effortlessly night after night. Quoting Broadcast News: "It was like great sex!" So, while avoiding any journalistic carnal knowledge, here are some ideas on improving your relationship with Talent.

This may sound simplistic, but if you take the time to do it, you'll see some results. Write the name of each of your anchors on a piece of paper. Be sure to include your sports and weather people. Include their back-ups. Under each name jot down their strengths and weaknesses. Think hard about these. Take notes during your show and spend a week putting together a list. (Whatever you do, don't leave your list around for them to see!) Here are a few to get you started:

• good ad-libber
• strong writer
• good with reporters
• looks authoritative
• smooth on cross-talk
• dresses well
• great voice
• shows sympathy well
• primps during bites & breaks
• stammers if anything goes wrong
• needs to buy a personality
• dumb as a post
• never pre-reads anything
• prima donna

Let's hope you don't have too many of the bottom ones. But if you do, there's hope. The most important thing here is that you get a good picture at the tools you've got to present your broadcast to the viewer.

Now that you have a clear picture of what you're dealing with, think like a football or basketball coach and put together a game plan that maximizes those strengths in every show. Make sure you give a toss to a breaking live shot that could fall apart any minute to the anchor that can ad-lib out of it when the signal goes to hash. Give the most important local stories to the anchor who's a good writer. If your anchor can't get to a generic live shot at :00:01 without looking panicked, then give them some video :10-:15 before the shot and wipe to your generic live. This may sound simplistic, but in charting your strengths and weaknesses you may find a better way to present your stories.

Chances are, at some point in your career, you've done time in front of the camera. You figure that gives you insight into what your talent is thinking and why they do or don't act or perform the way you want them to. You're wrong. I've been both, so trust me, you can sympathize but you can't empathize. I'm not trying to say that a job in front of the camera is more difficult than producing, just different. Very different. So to help you understand your meat puppets, here are some rules for their care and feeding.

1. Always protect the talent.

While making the list you may have written, "dumb as a post" and "prima donna" for one of your anchors. Sadly, you may be right on the money. But if you knowingly let your anchor go into a show with copy that's going to trip them up or let a director take a shot that makes them look stupid, you'll not only damage your relationship with your anchors, but you'll damage their image to the viewers.

Watch your talent closely during the broadcast. Do they look their best? I've done entire shows with my tie wildly crooked and my co-anchor's hair dangling off her ear. No one said a word. I've called newsrooms posing as the general manager threatening to fire someone if they didn't have the anchor turn his collar down. He'd done twelve minutes looking like an idiot, but no one cared. Like it or not, their image is your station's image. Hence, their image is your image.

Protect your talent from the morons that call on the phone after the broadcast. Be friendly, and always side with the meat puppet. If it was awful, say he/she didn't mean it and they're terribly sorry. Remember you're a family. Don't side with anyone against the family. If it's really bad, dump the call to the news director. That's what they get paid for.

2. Get out the Pampers.

Anchors are Babies. Even the most experienced, professional anchors can and will act like toddlers. They'll count the number of stories they're reading, get peeved when there's no water on the set, or blame others when they make a mistake. We all have stories, but the bottom line is you're the producer. You've got to be firm but you also have to care about what makes them happy. Granted, this can get ridiculous, so sometimes discipline is the way to go. However, if making sure some P.A. has water on the set for your anchor all the time makes your anchor better, do it. Your broadcast will benefit and so will you. Also, the occasional "liked the way you read that story on the homeless" goes a long way. You might find the sentiment returned.

It's important to remember that most anchors are terribly insecure. However, they're strong enough to take a risk and put whatever talent they have on the line every night. If the broadcast goes in the crapper, they often hear about it two hours later at the grocery store. Imagine if you had to explain to the produce clerk at the Safeway why video of a monkey riding a horse came up on the mayor's obit. You, the director, the font op., the tape op., or the audio person can make the mistake, but to the viewer, it's the anchor who's accountable. So when it does happen, and they handle it well, make sure you let them know. Your babies may act like children, but they can make you look very good if you treat them right and that pays off next time you're looking for a job.

3. Get to Know Your Talent.

You're coaching a team. Find out about your players. How they feel about the station, you, and the broadcast. An hour over beers or a few cups of coffee could save you a month's worth of headaches and heartache. You might be shocked to learn they know a lot more about things than they let on. These days an anchor team may get a new producer every six months to a year. To them that's like getting a new mother or father. Know what they like and don't like. Find out how to get the most out of them. Chances are they'll tell you. Here are a few good questions:

How should I talk to you in the IFB? When should I talk to you in the IFB? If I get a breaker, which one of you wants it, or do you care? What are your interests/background? Is there a special topic or story you want to write or read most often? Should I remind you when there's ten/five minutes to the open? Do you feel like you're getting enough/too many reads? How's the pacing of the broadcast? How can it be improved? What can I do to make you more comfortable on-air? If our news director won't pay me for these beers/coffees will you tell him/her we're working in a cheap sweat shop?

You'll be amazed at what you can learn from an hour with your talent outside the station. If you show them you care, they'll usually do the same. Many times they'll recommend you to their friends and contacts, and you'll end up with a better job when you leave.

It's up to you. Talent can be a curse or a blessing. A no-news day can be chicken salad or chicken sh--. If you make the most of your Talent, you'll be a better producer and your broadcast will hum. Remember, you're the foster parent of a TV family now. Make your kids work for you. Believe me, they want to.

PRODUCER/TALENT RELATIONSHIPS

From original letter:

I would love to learn about the relationship producers have with their reporters and anchors. It is one of compromise or conflict?

Response #1:

For that producer-to-be, relationships with anchors and reporters are delicate creatures that must be nurtured and nurtured and nurtured . . . and nurtured again. I've worked at my station for 2 1/2 years, and it's only been in the last year or so that I've felt my working relationships were solid.

What's worked for me? I respect, listen to, and trust the opinions of my anchors, reporters and photographers. If I've slated a reporter for a live wraparound vob and they come to me and say, "It's a package," I'm willing to listen and nine times out of 10, I'll change my rundown. If a photographer is particularly proud of some video and argues for a nat sound piece, I'm interested. I'm not a pushover, though. If I just can't squeeze it in, or I don't think it's right for my show, I tell them that. I'm enthusiastic about what they do, and I think that enthusiasm, over time, has made them enthusiastic about working with me on my show. I give lots of feedback, tell the managers about the good work and tell other people in the newsroom about all the great things they've done. I've worked hard to become a positive force in the newsroom, because I've seen how people are attracted to that and are willing to work with someone who's positive.

I'm in a strange position at my station. I produce an afternoon newscast, the first one of the evening, and it's created more work for a lot of people. The respect and trust I've earned means the reporters and photographers are busting their butts to get my show on the air. I'm thanking them for it, and the cycle begins again. In terms of anchors, you have to earn their trust. Their faces are out there, not yours, and they have to know that the person in their ear isn't going to leave them hanging. Every day, I talk to my anchors about the show. I tell them what's going on, the status of the live shots, the places where the show could blow up. I have plans B and C ready, and I tell them about those plans. Over the course of time, the communication has created a level of trust that makes for a great relationship, and a great show.

It takes time. Don't expect to walk into your first station your first day and have people listen to you. Get a feel for people's personalities. Find out what makes them tick, and what ticks them off. Some people will trust you instantly, others will bide their time. Be willing to listen, and to accept responsibility and to grovel a bit. It gets you a lot farther in the long run. (Nikki Egan)

Response #2:

I have been both a reporter and a show producer, so I know a little bit about the relationships between the two. Most of the time, experienced reporters and producers get along just fine. They understand each other, appreciate the demands both positions have and are willing to compromise. Problems develop, however, when one or both is a little green. Then there is tremendous potential for friction between reporters and producers.

Pet peeves of experienced producers:

• A reporter is late with a script that could have been ready hours earlier
• A reporter misses his or her slot for a liveshot because they "weren't ready"
• A reporter comes back with a story substantially different or weaker than what the competition has
• A reporter makes simple typos or factual errors (that the producer gets blamed for)
• A reporter's story runs :30 long, but never tells the producer

Pet peeves of experienced reporters:

• A producer tells them HOW to cover a story
• A producer insists on a live shot from the outside of a dark building where something happened 12 hours ago
• A producer won't give extra time for that BIG story, but they do have :20 for a VO about a new baby chimp at the zoo
• A producer teases or promotes a story that grossly misrepresents what the story is actually about (and then defends it by saying, "But it's just a tease!")
• A producer who insists a story can be turned into a package when it's a voice-over at best.

There are many more. And I've probably been guilty of them all! (Pat Anson, Pat18970@aol.com)

Response #3:

In regards to producer/reporter-anchor relations, it really boils down to a matter of respect. I found reporters wanted to work with me more than against me because they knew I respected their position. I'd been a reporter. I knew what it was like. It also helped when I got into management because I could better help reporters overcome obstacles. They were much more apt to take criticism, too. They knew I held them to the same high standards I set for myself as a reporter. They knew they couldn't put much past me and that helped a bunch. At the very least, go out and do some field producing. Learn what it's like in their shoes. I also encourage reporters to learn about producing so they can understand the other person's position. It also depends on the shop you get into. If it's a reporter-run shop, you'll make a lot of compromises in your producing. If it's a producer-run shop, the compromises will be fewer, unless of course you have a group of young, inexperienced producers who really have no business taking the lead in a newsroom. Anchors are a different breed and many have to be handled with kid gloves. Every producer gripes about their anchors not working enough and being hard headed. But I learned that's the sacrifice you make for having a good on-air product. It doesn't matter what happens behind the scenes. It matters what the public sees and perceives. Grow a thick skin, bite your tongue and cultivate patience. Again, respect goes a long way. Make good decisions, include the anchors in those decisions when possible and it'll pay off. (Gena Parsons)

Response #4:

I find that the main relationship between a producer and anchor revolves around making the anchor look good. That really should be a big priority. By making the anchor look good, I mean: making sure the writing is up to par, the story selection makes sense and everything is put in the rundown in such a way that you minimize technical snafus. Remember, if there's an on-air problem, the viewer relates it to the anchor, and that's where you run into problems. After all, it's their face in front of the camera.

Aside from that, the anchors should respect your judgment and they need to know you are in charge. For them to release themselves into your hands, I find you need to prove that you have their best interests at heart (i.e.: making them/show look good) I have only found that anchors take control when they feel the producer can't. It's sort of a preventative measure.

I work as a producer for an O & O in Los Angeles and we are a fairly anchor-driven shop (ie: big stars) However, I find the above to be true and if it works here, it'll work anywhere! (please withhold name)

Response #5:

My relationship with reporters and anchors has become more compromise than conflict although it's healthy to have some difference of opinion. I've found when you quietly but firmly demand respect, you get respect. It helps to have management that doesn't let talent run roughshod over producers. A few news directors believe that conflict breeds creativity. I think it encourages burnout. The ideal situation is where everyone feels they're part of the team and have a part in the vision of news you're pursuing. (Mike Andrews, MAndrews28@aol.com)

Response#6:

I've usually had excellent relationships with both the news anchors and the reporters I've worked with. The most difficult I've ever dealt with was the anchor who used to count how many stories he got each newscast compared to his co-anchor. He'd complain loudly if he felt shorted. But this was the same guy who went to bat for me when I got into some serious trouble. As long as you communicate with your talent and try to understand their point of view as well, you shouldn't have too many problems. (Gina Diamante, GDiamante@aol.com)

Response#7:

The relationship between producers and reporters/anchors is often built on both conflict and compromise. Conflict and compromise are two dynamics of any newsroom and you'll soon find out it's not only limited to the relationship between producers and on-air types. Never be afraid of conflict OR compromise. Keep both in your producer's tool kit along with wisdom, patience and compassion. Winning a newsroom argument may be a personal victor; just be sure that you're always on the side of your viewers. Hopefully you'll always have the support and guidance of management, but EP's get cranky and ND's get fired, so many times it will be up to you, as the producer, to keep the newsroom focused on your newscast. Conflict or compromise: you will have to make that decision given the debate. But as the producer, anchors and reporters should appreciate (and occasionally be reminded) that you hold their careers in your hands during the newscast. Just don't forget they hold yours as well. (Greg Easterly, east@host.yab.com)

Response #8:

I'm at the NBC affiliate in Tampa. We have a great relationship with the reporters. Everyone works together as a team and there is rarely any conflict. Compromise is definitely the call each day. And reporters do their job and know what that calls for. If they're asked to do a live shot for the noon news, they do (unless the truck fails, of course). If they can pull together a package instead of a vosot for a live shot, they will try to and let the producer know. And vice-versa if they can't pull a pack. The communication is strong between most of the reporters and producers with the reporters checking in during the day with any changes and to confirm how their story is shaping up. (Delinda Higinbotham, Delindah@aol.com)

WHO CAN CHANGE A SCRIPT?

From original letter:

My anchor thinks that if SHE doesn't know something, then obviously NO ONE ELSE knows it. Last week, we covered a story about a pipe bomb that was left in a park. In the script I wrote "police say the PVC pipe was packed with enough explosives . . ." She changed the sentence to say "police say the pipe was packed . . ."leaving the "PVC" part out. After the show, I shot her a little e-mail note asking why she did this. I explained that I put "PVC" in the sentence to distinguish the pipe from other "metal" or "copper" or "plastic" pipes that people might have. Her response: "BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT "PVC" IS. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF IT BEFORE, AND IF I HAVEN'T, THEN A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVEN'T EITHER." What do you do?

Response #1:

I agree with the anchor about dropping the letters "PVC" from the pipe bomb description. It doesn't help most of the audience understand what the pipe bomb was and why the three letters were added. Unless you're in Belfast or Bosnia, where pipe bombs are a recurring happening, why would you need to distinguish the type pipe bomb? I also agree that the anchor was correct to say that if she didn't know, then most of the public wouldn't know (it's a handy barometer for most journalists to use); but she should have asked the producer first what PVC is, discuss the importance of using the description, and then argue to drop the letters. Too many people play to their own strengths and knowledge and not enough to the audience's need to know. It's a cliche, but a useful one, ask yourself if the story would be clear to your grandmother, or mother (or any older relative); the old Eyewitness news stations used to use an imaginary Joe and Jane Lunchbucket when trying to sort through how much information to give in a story and how to phrase it. If these real or imagined viewers would "get it," then go with it. But a healthy, out-loud newsroom discussion would bring about a consensus. Also, I find it useful to raise these questions where age might be a factor. As a boomer, I will often ask our interns if they would know what I'm referring to when I use '60's or '70's reference. A good exercise: ask your college interns to name the four Beatles. Their response, or lack of it, could be a revelation. (Sheila Stainback)

Response #2:

This is in response to the producer who wanted advice on how to deal with an anchor who made an editorial change in a script. I have two points to make. First of all, I think its great the anchor was looking at the scripts before the newscast. However, if the anchor wants to suggest a change, that's a CONVERSATION the two need to have. The anchor should not just arbitrarily change the script. Secondly, whatever happened with two people talking through the issue? The producer wrote that after the show "e-mailed his/her concern" to the anchor, and that the anchor "e-mailed" his/her reply. Aren't we all in the communications business? If we are supposedly experts in communicating, the e-mail was the WRONG place to solve this problem! In the future, I would suggest that the producer TALK to the anchor after the show, complement the anchor on taking editorial interest in the program, and suggest that script changes should be DISCUSSED between the two of them before the newscast. However, in the end the final call belongs to the producer. (Douglas Drew)

Response #3:

Quoting a response from the above:

"In the future, I would suggest that the producer TALK to the anchor after the show, complement the anchor on taking editorial interest in the program, and suggest that script changes should be DISCUSSED between the two of them before the newscast. However, in the end THE FINAL CALL BELONGS TO THE PRODUCER." (emphasis added)

That last sentence is incorrect. Even if the producer is supposed to have that authority, an anchor uncomfortable with the script can simply ad-lib around or omit the offending words. And at many stations an anchor will hold what sounds like the meaningless title of Managing Editor. What it does mean is that the anchor has the final say over what he or she reads on the air.

In a dispute over something in the script, it's not enough to win the debate, you have to win the anchor over to your side of it or you probably still won't achieve what you want: to get the most informative and clearly written story on the air. (John McQuiston johnmcq@hotmail.com)

Response #4:

The producer whose anchor never heard of poly-vinyl chloride might consider calling it plastic pipe. I have no research to back up my view but I would guess more viewers know what plastic is than what PVC is. (Gil Haar)

Response #5:

Responding to your Anonymous producer whose anchor deleted the "PVC" from the "PVC pipe bomb" story: Sorry, Anonymous, but I'll have to side with your anchor here. Was it important that we know the pipe was plastic, rather than metal? If so, you should have written "plastic pipe". Was it important that we know it was PVC rather than ABS plastic pipe? Probably not. Remember: simplify. (Stan Bunger)

Response #6:

Your anchor has a point, but then, so do you. Sounds like the two of you don't communicate too much on revisions to the script. My own approach to this subject has been to always look out for terms "Larry Lunchbucket" viewer may not understand, and to explain them. Part of our job is to educate. So when a term like PVC comes up, by all means use it—but also use part of the script to explain what it means. My standard formula is to use the term, explain what it is, and then to wrap a second reference to the term somewhere later on. If you take this approach to your anchor, the meat puppet will learn something and so will the viewers. It's a win-win approach. And that also opens the door to you and your anchor to discuss situations like this when they come up on a day-to-day basis and to work together to explain the terms that need explaining.

Response #7:

From my own experience, you might have asked her about the problem instead of e-mailing her. It's kind of cold, especially when you're in the same building. Then, I might tell her why you thought "PVC" was important to the story. Hey, look, we all know that just because these people are anchors, it doesn't mean they have a clue. So, explain it to them in a way they can understand, and at the same time, leave them feeling as though they know what they're talking about. It will pay off for you in the long run.

Response #8:

She should be aware of what's going on. As a newsperson she needs to be informed and is kidding herself and the station and her audience by being ignorant of items of information. (Chris Pugh)

ADVICE FOR A FRUSTRATED PRODUCER

From original letter:

I'm having a problem with my anchors. Actually with one of my anchors. It's a problem that I've talked to both of them about, and so far, it doesn't look like there is a solution.

Here's the situation:

I produce the 90 minute morning show in X-city and I am at work by one in the morning. When the problem anchor gets in at 4, he asks if I have a certain story in my newscast. For example, when the woman who accused Michael Irvin and Erik Williams was charged, he wanted to know if it was in the newscast. When I told him it was in the sports package, he insisted that I have it later in the show. He began his protest at the time I print scripts.

I feel I have very good news judgment, and his co-anchor said I have good news judgment too. When I talked with the problem anchor, he said that he's done it with every producer that he's ever had, and that he will continue to do so. Sarcastically, I even asked him if I should call him at 1:30 in the morning to see what he thinks I should have in the newscast. What should I do, and are other anchors like this?

Response #1:

Letting more people have input should make for a better product. It should be encouraged. A 4 AM briefing where you solicit opinions and explain your thinking should give you plenty of time for discussion and changes. Everyone will feel invested and involved in a show if their opinions are heard—and the show (and you) will look better. Be open to the notion that your anchors CAN have a good idea, and CAN catch mistakes. When they do, thank them. Tell them "good idea!". You might have great Journalistic judgement, but over the course of a 90 minute show, there's bound to be opportunities missed. You'll suffer less burnout (I've been on the line 20 years) and have a better working relationship if you don't let pride make you stubborn. Certainly printing scripts early is a good thing for the director, but if you can't print a late script and make a show change at the last minute (and even during the show) you should re-evaluate your organizational structure. If the crew has the critical info ahead of time (tape, graphics, format, and talent), then a given script page can be late without creating a serious problem. In other words, don't let the script carry too much of the load. Lay any info you can into the advance rundown. The trick is to be considerate of the crew's needs and ensure those needs are met. If you show them you're trying, they'll be understanding when late changes occur. We've come up with situations and ideas that require a reorganizing the whole show ten minutes or less before air. The trick is having the organization and communications to coordinate changes.

When I talked with the problem anchor, he said that he's done it with every producer that he's ever had, and that he will continue to do so. That's probably true, and he should continue to do so. Sarcastically, I even asked him if I should call him at 1:30 in the morning to see what he thinks I should have in the newscast. Sarcasm—that's bound to help. If your show's at 5, a 4:30 printing should be leisurely. Are other anchors like this? I insist my anchors are like that. (Skip Wood)

Response #2:

I'm a producer with 10 years experience in mid-sized markets, and believe it or not the exact same thing happened to me. My anchor came back late in the evening from a speech he was giving and wanted to know where the Michael Irvin story was. Yes, I was angry about him coming back so late and appearing to check the rundown for omissions. We did put the story in instead of leaving it to sports. My feeling on anchors is that I feel fortunate that I get to work with good, smart ones. There have been times when I've worked with anchors who weren't terribly bright or interested in news. That leaves a big responsibility for one person. I do get final say over what we air and where it goes, how much time, etc. But I appreciate hearing from the anchors when they have an idea on how to do it better. (Name Withheld)

Response #3:

I have always taken the view that a newscast is not MY show. It is the work of everyone—sports, weather, reporters, editors, photographers, and yes, even anchors. From the tone of your letter you seem to take his additions defensively, as if he is finding something wrong with your line-up instead of adding to it. When he comes in, walk over to his desk, go over the run down with him. Ask him if he would like any changes. Make him feel like he is part of the producing process. Many producers I work with take a "them" and "us" stance. I look at it as: it's their face out there and it's my job to make that face look good. If you feel you can't approach him one on one, leave a slug in your line-up labeled "x anchor story" and whatever he brings up to add, add the slug and have him write it. That way you have budgeted for the time and you won't have to write anything late and can concentrate on your show.

Response #4:

Your letter really spoke to me. It was the story of my life for one year. For starters, the best advice is to take a deep breath. Otherwise, it is very easy for you to say something like, "you can produce the show—if you can stand the pay cut." That doesn't help anybody. Listen to what the anchor is saying and literally say, "Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see what I can do." From that point, it's your call. If you see the point and want to change your rundown, do it. Otherwise, assure the anchor that you're working on it—and by the time you get into the show it will be forgotten. But do listen to see if it is an ego griping or a legitmate oversight on your part. If you are not able to add tape or change the rundown, you can suggest that the anchor toss the story in as an ad lib someplace. That way, you don't have to get editors, directors or writers off track to please the anchor if you can spare 20 seconds. Also, make sure you can back up your decision to the anchor or anyone who confronts you about it. My experience is that the News Director will take your side if you have a solid foundation for the decision you made.

Response #5:

The morning anchor brings up a problem I have been having in my shop, a type of reverse age discrimination. The favorite joke among the vets: where were you when man walked on the moon? Or during Watergate? Or even when the space shuttle blew up? (my answers, by the way: 1. teething, 2. going to preschool, and 3. playing hooky from high school). They walk around talking about editing film and how they remember when ENG first started, then balk at using a live shot for a story THEY don't feel needs it because that's not how they USED to do it. I have been confronted as not having enough experience because my years in the biz have not reached the double digits. I remember in college we talked about just getting your foot in the door
. . . but it seems like we really have to wait until our heads are gray and faces wrinkled until some "old newsies" will respect us. I try to chalk it up as insecurity, but it can really get in the way of day-to-day producing. Why can't these ornery vets realize that without the "kids" the news business would be stuck with film and cardboard graphics? A good idea can come from a brain that's under 40.

AND FINALLY . . . .
BECAUSE PRODUCERS ARE PERFECT AND ANCHORS ARE NOT

By an Anonymous Contributor

The one and only anchor goes from the third story to the bump at the end of the A block. She gets the deer in the headlights look when I tell her which story to go to next instead of the bump. She manages to get through the rest of the show okay.

I go to the studio to see what the deal was, knowing the stories she tried to skip came down to the set about five minutes before air separate from the others. They're all there, at the bottom of her scripts.

I ask: "What was the problem? You had everything right there."

Answer: "They weren't the same color, so I didn't know what to do with them."

COMPARISON OF JOURNALISTIC VALUES OF TELEVISION REPORTERS AND PRODUCERS

By Conrad Smith and Lee Becker, from Journalism Quarterly 66 (1989): 793-800.

Research Question: Are news producers different from television reporters in ways that might affect the journalistic integrity of television news?

Main Findings: (in no particular order)

• Producers are less critical than reporters of their stations' newscasts, which previous studies suggest might mean they are less professional.
• Producers are also likely to have pursued television news careers for more pragmatic and less idealistic reasons than reporters.
• There is little evidence that reporters are fighting for the journalistic integrity of television news against producers who are interested only in the show-business aspects of television.
• Education levels of reporters and producers were nearly identical, with 90% of reporters and 89% of producers having college degrees.
• Reporters were significantly more likely than producers to have majored in Journalism.
• Producers were significantly more likely than reporters to be women, though female producers were significantly younger than their mail counterparts.
• The early-evening producer at an average station had about a year and a half more TV news experience than the average reporter at such a station and had worked in four-tenths more television newsrooms.
• 42% of reporters and 37% of producers indicated membership in at least one professional organization, with 18% of reporters and 15% of producers members of The Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi.
• Producers were four times more likely than reporters to consider themselves on the career path to news management.
• Among reporters and producers who indicated interest in changing jobs during the next 10 years, 62% of the producers but only 15% of the reporters said they aspired to television management jobs.
• 10% of the reporters were interested in becoming producers, and nine percent of the producers wanted to be reporters.
• 47% of the reporters who wanted to change jobs during the next 10 years said they wanted to leave television news, compared to only 24% of like-minded producers.
• Reporters and producers showed nearly identical news values in their assessments of whether a school levy story should be dumped to make room for "live" coverage of the local mayor returning from an out-of-town trip
• Both favored keeping the school levy story and killing the "live" shot, regardless of the reason given for using it.
• Producers were slightly more inclined than reporters to select the school levy story over the "live" coverage.
• Reporters are more likely than producers to believe most producers would use the "live" shot at the expense of the school levy story, especially if producers were being pressured by management to use "live" coverage regularly.
• Both indicate "live" coverage is often used without journalistic justification.
• Reporters were more critical than producers of practices within their own newsrooms.
• Reporters were slightly more likely than producers to say non-news stories get on local news because they are easy to do "live."
• Reporters were more critical than producers of one of the presentation variables, the visual quality of their station's newscast.
• Reporters were significantly more likely than producers to say they got into news because they enjoyed their work and enjoyed journalism and because of the influence of a person, experience or event.
• Producers were significantly more likely to say they entered the field because of the opportunity for control over newswork or for pragmatic reasons.
• Reporters were much more likely to use the works "people," "live," "variety," "curiosity," "fun" and "current events."
• Producers were much more likely to mention "control," "manage," and "power."
• Reporters expect producers to choose presentation values over journalistic ones, but the two groups are nearly identical in their evaluation of whether a routine political appearance should be covered "live" at the expense of news about a school levy.
• Reporters and producers were also equally likely to agree many non-news stories get covered "live" because the new technology makes "live" coverage so easy.
• Producers seem to be just as troubled as reporters by the discrepancy between their own values and industry norms for using "live" coverage.
• These findings suggest that misuse of "live" coverage should not be attributed to the show-business values of producers pitted against a more noble set of journalistic criteria used by reporters.
• Producers indicate that they enjoy their work less than reporters and are more likely than reporters to have chosen producing for pragmatic rather than idealistic reasons.
• Local news producers responding to this study are much like the network producers studied by Epstein 20 years ago in that they come from a somewhat different background than reporters and in that they treat their work more as a job and less as a calling.
• Producers are much more interested than reporters in the editorial control they wield.
• Producers have more experience in television news and have worked at more stations than reporters.
• They are less likely to be critical of the newscasts produced by their stations and to think in general that producers degrade television news by making poor judgments about coverage.
• Producers are more likely than reporters to say they got into television news because it allows them to control the product.
• Producers are more likely than reporters to take a management orientation to their work.
• The study supports the myth of a split in the television newsroom along the lines of the split in the print newsroom between reporters and editors.
• There is little evidence in support of the idea that, if television news has deteriorated since the mid 1970s as many critics charge, producers stand alone as the culprits.

By Various Contributors

Original letter from a Frustrated Small-Market Producer:

I'm a producer in a small newsroom that has developed a terrible penchant for gossip, tattle-telling, and a lack of professional and even personal respect for co-workers. Just the other day I got a lecture from a co-worker (a reporter) who told me I should just take a reporter's word that they couldn't get a story. I did that, in the first few months I worked there, until I got repeatedly burned by reporters not getting their stories for the day, or the night, and not letting me, the producer, know about it until the very last minute—when I might have already teased it throughout the night. And as it turned out, half the time those stories weren't gotten because the reporting team simply didn't budget their time well, or were too busy relaxing on a lunch/dinner break.

My point is this: I since have become more and more responsible in my boss's eyes for how the newscast looks—from the content of bites to the amount of local sports in the sports segment. Therefore, I'm the one who must answer if someone doesn't get a story, or video, or correct information, and so it only stands to reason that I question why something "can't" be done. And that has led to grumbling about my bad attitude and mistrust. Is there anything I can do to resolve this, without resorting to blind trust (since that proved to be a ball-buster)? I can't soften up, but neither do I want continued gossip, more complaints lodged against me, or a hostile working environment with my team. I've resigned myself to living with it, but any advice would be helpful.

Response #1:

Sounds like three problems: poor middle management, a lack of mutual respect, and poor communications. The laziness might be a problem for you, but it's management's responsibility. The mutual respect takes work. Show some and you start to get some back. The best way to do that in my opinion is by solving problem three. Talk to your reporters to see how they're doing. Ask them how strong their stories are and get their opinions on the best way to present those stories. A habit of that give-and-take will go a long way toward stopping unpleasant surprises. It sounds like you also have to work on the rapport with the Assignment Editor or whatever other middle management type is holding the reporatorial reigns and briefing you on what's going on when you come in.

Response #2:

This is an age old newsroom conflict found at small, medium, and large newsrooms at stations and networks. Everyone of us who has come through the producer ranks has had to face this basic problem. You are not alone. At the same time this conflict can be minimized! You can have a productive work relationship with reporters and even anchors.

You used some words, like "demands" and "unreasonable," that indicate you may want to look hard at your own approach. Are you allowing your frustrations and the pressure you seem to feel from your boss get in the way? You can learn to work with others in a positive way if you can master "assertive" management skills.

By managing assertively, I mean finding that positive zone between the mind set of a "victim" with no control over the situation or at the other extreme, the angry and aggressive person who deals with problems by verbally attacking those seen as the source of the problem. The assertive person stays calm, keeps their own goals in mind, and refuses to be involved in unproductive win-lose conflicts.

Some of the advice I give in producer workshops starts with your basic approach to the day. Arrive prepared. Know the news thoroughly. Use your time carefully and stay focused. Keep a legal pad with all your story options available to avoid forgetting a story. Take care of the details. Double check everything.

Back time your day. Set deadlines for each task and stick to those deadlines. Timely and careful organization make it easier to recover from a problem and make a quick and good decision.

In the newsroom think of yourself as a team leader. Motivate by being positive and upbeat. Don't complain, stay calm and in control of your own emotions. Don't show frustration. Don't act like a problem is the end of the world or you are swamped by negative problems. Offer solutions, don't just complain. Offer friendly, specific feedback. Don't lose your temper!!!

In working with reporters, remember that you have a totally different mind set about the newscast. The average reporter only sees their part of the overall broadcast. Demonstrate your understanding of their job by knowing their story. Keep current and know the background and history of the story. Know the community and the logistics problems the crew will face in getting the story.

Be proactive. Don't wait for the reporters to come to you. Talk to them about the story before they go out. Write a one line "focus" statement of the story and run it by the reporter to make sure you agree.

Without being obnoxious, always insist on communication when the reporter is headed back from a story so you can double check your story "focus."

In dealing with others maintain a positive attitude.

How do you deal with this current situation? I would suggest you have a conversation with a reporter who failed to deliver. Set aside a specific appointment and do it away from the newsroom.

Start with a statement that you have a problem and you need their help to solve the problem. The problem: she's not getting stories back in time to make air or she keeps going out on stories that don't pan out.

Give them your feelings or reactions—"this is frustrating and hurts the newscast and it is making me and the whole newscast team look bad to the news director."

The solution: ask for their help in solving the problem. "What can be done to get stories done on time or to come up with better stories?"

Before this conversation, prepare and rehearse, through this process listen and watch carefully. Don't be accusatory. In talking specifics, go back over the details and make sure you understand without making any judgmental statements. Work to understand. In developing a solution, agree on a plan of action and obtain a commitment. Follow-up.

If this doesn't work, and it probably won't the first time, go through the entire exercise again. It may take several tries. Be patient. Work to achieve a "win-win" solution. You need a good story for your broadcast and they need to show their professional skill. Remember to provide positive feedback when they do a good job!

If this doesn't work, make one final attempt and warn the reporter you are going to have to discuss this situation with the boss if it doesn't improve. If it doesn't then you must talk to the news director.

Sometimes news directors will try to avoid dealing with this kind of problem. Then you've got to have the same kind of conversation going through the same steps.

There are some good books that will help you manage assertively:

• Difficult People: How to Deal with Impossible Clients, Bosses and Employees, by Roberta Cava, Firefly Books;
• Coping with Difficult People, by Robert Bramson, Phd., Dell paperbacks; and
• Managing Assertively, by Madelyn Burley-Allen, Wiley.

(Dow Smith, Associate Professor, Broadcast Journalism, Syracuse University)

Response #3:

Team is the key word. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're not on it. It sounds like it's all of them against you, suggesting you're the common denominator. Don't use BLIND trust, used INFORMED trust. "How's that story coming? Is it strong enough for the first block? Good job last night, by the way. Great standup." Including reporter input in the decision- making process will invest them in the process, foster mutual respect, and produce superior results.

Response #4:

I went into my first "real job" as a producer scared to death. I knew quite a bit about the business (not as much as I thought I did), and I knew that I was responsible for my show. I took charge from day one, and by day ten or so found myself doing a half-hour newscast on my own—because my untempered, unwavering in-charge attitude alienated my co-workers.

Believe me when I say there is nothing worse than working in such an impossible work environment.

Relationships in this ego-filled business can be very touchy— especially when a reporter or anchor is feeling threatened, or when you (a producer) are new to the business/newsroom and shift the dynamic of how the newsroom is run. As a producer you know what you want, and you want it your way—but they want it their way, too. And if your reporters are not working with you, they WILL be working against you, and they can make your professional life hell if they decide to.

Even though "One of Many Small Market Producers" seems to be plastered squarely onto the bull's eye of reporters' apparent vindictiveness, there is hope! I do speak from experience.

1) Pay attention to the way you talk to the reporters: Could they construe what you say as an order? Do you speak in a condescending tone? Are you threatening their creativity? Do you address the problems you are having with accusations or do you look for solutions?

2) Talk to the reporters: Keep in contact throughout the night, not just in the minutes before the newscast (get your ND to make that mandatory if you need to). If they can't turn a package or a live shot, make sure they do something (unless the story is a total bust).

3) Listen to the reporters: Sometimes a story just can't be pulled together. If they are in a state of despair over getting what you want, ask what they can deliver. Listen to what they are saying, accept it, use it, and encourage them so they will help you do your job. Don't get so caught up in the "this is what I want" state of mind that you rule out any contributions reporters can make (they do know the story better than you most of the time).

4) Appreciate your reporters: No matter which reporters you work with, at sometime they will be so in to a story their report will leave you astounded. Tell them! Tell them what was great. Tell them how much you appreciated "the moment" in the story as not just a producer but a viewer.

5) Encourage teamwork and creativity: Don't think of the newscast as YOUR (singular) show, but as YOUR (plural) show, and let your reporters know. Have discussions about stories—two brains coming up with ideas for stories and elements are always better than one! Don't knock down the reporter's "fluff" story idea because you want hard news—listen, discuss, evaluate. Yes, you make the final call (or your EP or ND), but listen first. If you get a reputation for blasting down ideas or ignoring reporters' thoughts, it will work against you. And the opposite is as true: accept them and their ideas (at least occasionally) work with them, and they will work with you.

I guess the keys here are talk and teamwork. It's possible (though doubtful) that none of this applies. But it is probable that a lot of this is going on, and you may not even notice some of it. So, step back and observe yourself, talk, and listen. Talk to your news director, too—not only about the problems, but about how you intend to solve them. I lucked out and had a great people-person, problem-solver ND when I was in your shoes, and I hope you are as lucky.

Response #5:

When you think about it, it is amazing how hard it is to get feedback as a producer, since (much more often than not) producers are younger and less experienced than their on-air colleagues, yet we have a lot more control over what goes over the air than our reporting colleagues.

But, it's a fact of life that at a lot of very good newsrooms in small markets, there is never a chance to give producers feedback. It took me until I got into a Top 30 market to have a manager actually look at one of my newscasts with a critical eye in a one-on-one situation.

But luckily there is the U.S. mail. Assuming you know other people in the business, ask them to look at your tape. Is there a larger market within a reasonable drive? Call the stations there and try to set up something with an EP or Senior Producer. It serves a twofold purpose: it gives you feedback, and maybe it gets your name circulated in a bigger market. Do you have old professors who might look at your tape? How about alumni from your school who are a little farther along in their careers? Check with your school's career planning office. They may have a list of folks willing to give "career advice." Getting advice from outside your newsroom is sometimes very helpful because the folks within the newsroom are sometimes too close to the show to see it with a critical eye.

It takes a little effort, but it's worth it. Maybe you'll find out you're doing great—or that you have a lot to learn. Better to find it out now than when you really want to move on to bigger and better things later.

(Ted McEnroe, tmcenroe@pobox.com)

Response #6

I don't even have time to write this, but I am adversely "moved" by [the] producer's comments [note: see original Letter from a Frustrated Small-Market Producer, above], forcing me to pen something. . . . I happen to be a ten-year veteran television reporter. The producer who authored this note said reporters didn't get stories "usually" because they were "relaxing" on lunch/dinner break. If I had a penny for every missed lunch/dinner, I'd be a billionaire. I know few reporters who are afforded the luxury of eating one meal during work time once a month! Producers are often unreasonable in their story requests if they have never before reported. They don't know what obstacles get in the way of getting stories. Things are often far easier said than done. However, reporters need to keep communication lines open, and good reporters call in frequently with story status, so producer/reporter can brainstorm alternatives. And if a reporter, midway, can't complete the story that was pitched by the producer, the reporter should be required to say, "I can't get this angle, but I can do a story on _____" A reporter should never come up empty-handed, and a good reporter can turn a story, even if no one agrees to go on camera. (Susan Ashline)

By Various Contributors

Letter #1:

I am a just-hired morning and noon producer in a small market, and don't get much guidance from management. We don't go live and reporters just do their own thing without much communication. How can I make my newscasts different and interesting every day? The reporters start here at nine a.m.

Response #1:

You are probably facing the classic "slow day takeoff" problem, where it takes forever to get people out the door, and getting fresh stuff back for the nooner is always an uphill fight. The key is your assignment desk. What time does it open? Should it open earlier? If the answer is yes, then why not stagger start times of the reporters or ever designate one reporter to feed the morning and noon news with fresh stuff that is appropriate. If you don't have someone on the street at 8 am or earlier and your desk can't give that person something to do at that hour, you're hooped. You may also need to gear this thing up by knowing what you want done on story coverage and demanding it happen (an assignment desk set in its ways will continue to operate as it always has)—so shake it up without becoming irritating. Depending on what staff resources you have you should insist on having some of that geared to your needs. If the rest of them want to sit around till 10 am and chat about what to do for later newscasts, let them. Sooner or later the revolution you start will have everyone moving faster.

Letter #2:

I have a problem. I work for an extremely small market (177) and producing good newscasts are hard when I am the writer, the editor and the producer and sometimes the reporter. My question is how do I put together good newscasts that are worthwhile and interesting when I wear so many hats? I was also wondering if producers ever get support? Many times I feel like the "lazy stepchild." "Oh Kim doesn't have anything to do so she can write and/or edit this story." I guess it's my fault for not putting my foot down but at times our reporters are loaded down also. The reason I want to know about the support is because when I was a weekend producer in a 122 market it was the same way. The news director could care less how a show looked as long as we had more stuff and more packages than our competition. I think I am just getting insecure and worry about getting stuck here. I have no desire to be on air (at one time I did but after much soul-searching I realized producing is more important to me.) I would like to get to a medium-sized market and get my feet wet in a place who has the staff to do better news. I know I asked a lot of questions but I would appreciate any sort of answer.

Response #1:

This producer should take some comfort in the knowledge that neither her viewers, who count most, nor her prospective next bosses, whose opinions matter too, expect newscasts from the 177th market to have a major-market look.

But it doesn't take six live shots per show or a gyro-zoom- equipped helicopter or even an adequate support staff to improve the one thing that can make all the difference: writing. It's true that quality suffers when any one person is playing the parts of producer, tape editor, and reporter. On the other hand, those are the days that good writing is most important. And, once her skill reaches a certain level, your producer seeking support won't take as long to generate higher-quality copy. There are hints in her letter that indicate some room for improvement—even when there's no deadline looming. The best part is she herself can make it happen:

• by reading voraciously and figuring out what it is about good writing that makes it work;
• by sending her writing off to a friend or mentor for critique; and
• by pretending to be a real viewer while watching and listening to her own work on tape

I do want to congratulate her on not falling into the "there's-just-not-enough- news-here" trap. I spoke today with a reporter from a market even smaller than 177. He began the conversation bemoaning how he feels consigned to covering 4-H meetings and similar fare. By the end of our talk he was planning a well-focused enterprise piece about discipline in schools and rethinking his opinion of farms as a source of stories. (When you think about it, they're pretty video-rich, too.) Small markets do drive some good people prematurely out of the business, and that's a shame. But lots of very successful people I know look back five or ten or even twenty years later and decide they learned some of their most valuable lessons and skills back in the land of the triple-digit DMA. Make the most of it. (Scott Libin, The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Libin@Poynter.org)

By Producers, Reporters & a Photographer

FROM PRODUCERS: I Wish . . .

• The reporter would let me know when the story changes from what it was in the morning meeting.
• The reporter would remember to turn off the printer so the whole package doesn't print out instead of just the intro and tag. Crunch time during script printing is NOT the time to wait for the printer to spit out whole package scripts.
• The reporter would make the effort to debrief with the producer when coming back from a story.
• Reporters would let me read their scripts before they are edited.
• Reporters understood just how important precise scripting is to production!!
• Writers and reporters would look at the story before and after theirs and try to write a transition.
• Reporters and writers would happily write a package straight from the intro through the tag instead of writing the body then trying to come up with an acceptable beginning and end.
• Reporters thought about ways to tease their stories. Afterall, the story won't matter much if a viewer doesn't stick around to watch it.
• Editors loved jumping in with suggestions about good/bad video, good/bad sound.
• All reporters could produce for a day.
• All producers could report for a day.
• You wouldn't get a long, unexpected ad-lib in an otherwise scripted live shot when your show was already tight. Granted, it's the producer's own fault for not ferreting out that possibility, but a little "heads up" never hurts. (Yoohoo, weathercaster, you're gonna be tight!)
• We could all have nap time on those comfy cut-up carpet pieces like we had in first grade, then wake up and have cookies and milk.

FROM REPORTERS: I Wish . . .

• News teases and promos mirrored my story's actual content!
• Producers actually had to go out in the field and do the work they expect others to do.
• Producers decide the length of a story by its MERIT as NEWS and not because he or she needs to "FILL A HOLE".
• More producers had actually been reporters at some point in time.
• Producers wouldn't request "Live Shots" simply because "We have the Capability".
• More producers were literate. (I was once castigated for using the word "amicable" in a stand-up.)
• More producers had imagination.
• Producers had the guts to tell the news director or managing editor to take a hike.
• More producers were armed, so when ignorant consultants dictate ridiculous rules to them the Producers could open fire at will. (this also goes for opening fire on ignorant reporters)
• Producers weren't afraid to bust their line-up five minutes before the show opens if there's a really big story worth going live for. (I once worked for a producer who started her show with a story on the local OPERA getting new seats in their theatre, while everyone else in town topped their show off with a live-shot from a multiple-fatality commuter airplane crash—the plane had crashed into a home, killing the six occupants of the home and 10 occupants of the airplane. Our competition led with a live-shot from the scene of the inferno and dramatic videotape of the inferno. Our audience got to see, get this, EMPTY seats at the top of our newscast. We never even went to the plane crash live.)
• More producers weren't afraid to ruffle feathers—of politicians, of their bosses, of those we cover in general. There seems to be an attitude among some that it's best to not rock the boat. I've seen good producers give-in to lousy decisions by their bosses simply because they wanted to "go along to get along" and at the same time I've seen producers shy away from stories because they thought some politician would get angry.
• Reporters had more intestinal fortitude to go out and get the REAL story.
• Reporters weren't so damn lame and ignorant.
• Reporters were seasoned enough to know what a REAL story IS and ISN'T.

FROM A PHOTOGRAPHER: I Wish . . .

• People would look at a map from time to time.
• If the newser is at 9am, don't tell us to leave at 9am, thinking "they always start late."
• Producers would trust our news judgement a little more, since the reporter and I are there, not the producer.
• Other photographers would label their field tapes so we could find them when we need them later in the day.
• Engineering would stop thinking we break equipment on purpose.
• Reporters would remember it's not their story, it's the subject's story, and not feel compelled to fill every blank with their voice instead of the subject's voice.
• News directors would fight harder for the news department when we need things from management.

I contacted the managing editors at several community newspapers in big small towns [big enough to have a newspaper :)] outside our "main" coverage area (Madison). Each day they fax me a maximum of three stories, but sometimes none or one depending on the news. The stories are used in a segment we call "Talk of the Town."

The segment begins with an animated graphic that says "Talk of the Town" in print-style lettering, with "Read all about It" and our logo in the bottom corner. There's audio of a printing press running underneath. The anchor says something like, "Each day at this time we give you an idea of what people are talking about throughout our viewing area. If you'd like to know more, remember, you can read all about it!"

The animation then peels back to a full-screen graphic with the newspaper masthead on the top. As the anchor reads a brief "headline," a bullet point style headline appears underneath the masthead. We usually hear from three of the seven newspapers each day and we keep the segment to about 1:00 total. Each "headline" lasts about 7-10 seconds.

We've had really positive feedback from everyone involved. Folks at the newspaper get free advertising, viewers who feel we never cover them get covered and we get some great story ideas that we might not have heard about otherwise!

The other segment that's been really popular is a segment we call "Kids These Days." Our former weekend anchor works part-time now as a reporter (she just had her second child). Each Tuesday she comes on the air and tells a brief personal story about her kids, then throws it to a package about that topic. For example: "The first time I went back to work after having Ben he just cried and cried . . . but pediatricians say separation anxiety is normal among kids his age. . ." to package.

Our older audience loves hearing a young mother talk about her kids, while the young mothers have a chance to "relate" to someone on TV. We invite young mothers with questions to send them to Susie, and she'll ask the experts.

We've had a number of other success stories with this show, but these are the best. Of course, we're only on week two right now, but I'm very anxious for the November book!!!

WMTV, Madison, Wisconsin (KSueKos@aol.com)

[3/98]

I always knew that if I left the morning meeting and had a lead story and something promotable, I would have a pretty good newscast that day. First and foremost, make sure you never leave the table until you’ve got a pretty good idea what those two stories are going to be. If things change, go with it. But if they don’t, I always want to be the one with the plan.

We all talk about “winning the lead.” Before you can do that, however, you have to WIN THE MORNING MEETING. Regardless of who runs your meeting, every producer present has an obligation to push the agenda of their newscast and their newsroom philosophy.

Here are 10 tips for making the editorial meetings more productive.

1. Understand your customer. Make sure everyone knows who’s watching your news and when! One way to do this is to make sure your management team shares the audience information from rating books and research. You can write a story in many different ways. But if you think about who’s watching your newscast, and how they might benefit from hearing that story, it makes it a lot easier to write.

2. Take a moment to celebrate your success. While you’re in the booth, your fellow producers are getting their newscasts ready. Most of your reporters or photogs are out in the field or busy during the newscast. So a lot of the good things that happen when you’re on the air never get seen by the rest of the newsroom. Let them share in the success by starting every meeting by talking or showing the things you did the day before that worked. It’s a great way to keep the good ideas coming, give some people (including you) some credit, and to reinforce what you want in your newscast.

3. Everybody gets assignments before the meeting. Not just beat calls and regional newspapers, but specific assignments such as morning drive radio, web sites, magazines, morning video feeds, lead-in program focus. Maybe you divide up additional responsibilities, too: like having someone responsible every day for finding something to build Anchor Credibility. Maybe you’re the Producer of the 5 PM, but your also the Producer in charge of Memorable Story Telling.

4. Don’t let the daybook dictate your coverage. Too many meetings become a list of the daybook. Your Assignment Editor should be one resource, but not the only one. Start with what you bring to the table, then discuss what’s on the news agenda. As the Producer, it’s your job to come with ideas and identify the stories you want in your newscast.

5. Find the TWPATA every day. That’s What People Are Talking About. Make sure your newscast reflects it!

6. Find the WIIFM in every story. What’s In It For Me? That’s what your viewers ask when they hear a promo, tease or lead-in. If you can’t answer that question, ask yourself if the story should be in your newscast. Use the WIIFM to focus your story and develop a specific story treatment before leaving the meeting.

7. Find your POD. What are your Points-of-Differentiation in your story treatment. Not just a different production technique to tell your story, but an editorial point of difference. You need to find substantive, promotable points of difference between different newscasts and what your competitors will do. It makes writing those tease much easier!

8. Define it & sign it. Take input from everyone, then commit to a story focus, production, and angle. Post it in the newsroom and get your field crews to literally sign it if you have to. Get everyone to make a commitment! If it changes later, everybody will know to communicate the change. By getting consensus agreement, if you end up fighting with the reporter or anchor later on about it, you’ll have support.

9. Divide and conquer. Use the rest of the ideas throughout the newscasts instead of just repeating the same stories in different forms. Save the good ideas that don’t get done today and carry them forward for another day. What might not be good enough today might be a great idea tomorrow.

10. The Tomorrow Producer. One producer needs to be responsible for looking ahead. Have a brief brainstorm every morning about upcoming stories or events so you can get a jump on producing the next day or next week’s news coverage.

Manage your ideas throughout the day, be flexible as things happen and stories evolve, and make sure you’re consistent with your station’s image and goals.

Don’t wait for the News Director or E.P. to tell you to do these things. Get the producers in your newsroom together and decide to take charge. It’s up to you!

Paul Dughi is the Director of The Producing SchoolSM at The Broadcast Image Group. He conducts training seminars for News Directors, Executive Producers, and Producers across the country. He has worked as an Anchor, Reporter, Photographer, Producer, Executive Producer, and most recently as News Director at KHQ-TV in Spokane, Washington and WBNS-TV in Columbus, Ohio. Dughi can be reached by phone at (210)828-6664 or e-mail at pedbig@aol.com

[4/98]

ERVICES

Note: I allowed many local news producers and executive producers to be quoted anonymously in this article, because so many are afraid of offending their news directors or ruining their relationships with their news service representatives. In this case I believe I have made a good trade: honesty in place of names. I also should disclose the fact that I work for the ABC O&O in Chicago.

On March 24, producers at ABC affiliates around the country looked on in frustration as a generic live shot was canceled. And then another. And then another. It was the day of the school shootings in Jonesboro, Ark. And it was, by all accounts, a very bad day for NewsOne, the service that coordinates video and live shots for ABC stations.

"We lost as many shots that day as we lost all of last year," says Geoff Sadow, managing editor of NewsOne.

A series of setbacks felled the live shots. A KU truck from WPTY in Memphis arrived at the scene at 5 PM, but the second path on the truck, the path that was supposed to provide NewsOne's coverage for the country, promptly died. It was temporarily resurrected, and the 8 PM live shot worked.

A replacement truck was rented, but its operator couldn't get it working in time for the 11 PM group live shots. The NewsOne correspondent who'd flown in from Atlanta was left standing in the dark, until the midnight and 2 AM lives.

Sadow says what happened was far from typical. "When you look at the overall picture, [NewsOne's] record is pretty good."

Sadow says, for 1998 so far, the failure rate is 1.8%. That translates to nine group live shots that were planned, but didn't happen, out of a total of 483 since Jan. 1. But in all of 1997, only six group live shots died, out of a total of 1,327.

If those numbers and terms sound like gibberish to you, then you probably haven't worked in a local television newsroom in the past decade. "Group" live shots are also known as "generic" lives, and they're offered by ABC NewsOne, CBS Newspath, NBC News Channel, CNN Newsource, Fox News Edge, and Conus. Typically, a reporter stands at the scene of a big story, live on the satellite, and simply starts talking at exactly one minute after the hour, and again at 31 minutes after the hour. Producers all over the country have written just enough copy so the anchors will stop reading just as the live reporter begins to speak. The live shots are offered on the big stories of the day, such as developments in the Monica Lewinsky saga, tornadoes in Florida, the Paula Jones lawsuit being thrown out or the ever-popular El Nino-powered floods in California.

If a producer has planned his newscast around this group live shot, and finds out at the last minute that it's not going to happen after all, he's in a pickle. That's a nice way of saying that he's cursing. After all, his lead story just disappeared. The success of group live shots is just one of many ways that affiliate producers measure the success of their services. Many producers have access to two or three services, and can pick and choose among the video clips offered and live availabilities.

Other producers must rely on just one service for everything. If the correspondent has not arrived, and there's no satellite truck within 350 miles, and the best chance at ever getting video is by Federal Express, that's life. The producer just has to settle for maps and phoners.

Several contributors mentioned Jonesboro, and not all of them work for ABC stations.

Mark Falgout, special projects producer at WTVD (ABC) in Raleigh-Durham, says, "I thought the coverage in Jonesboro was one of [NewsOne's] weaker efforts because of all the canceled live shots."

Cherie Lytle is a producer at WOWT, the NBC affiliate in Omaha. "I've learned from experience those generic live shots aren't always a good thing. I always take a back-up package just in case. In fact, last week we lost two NBC shots from Jonesboro. One was cancelled seconds before the hit time . . . the other crashed during the live tag," says Lytle.

Still, NBC News Channel has a good share of fans.

NBC NEWS CHANNEL

As Angela Dallman says: "I worked at the NBC station in Sacramento for almost six years, first as a special projects producer, then as managing editor. In both positions, my experiences with NBC News Channel were almost exclusively positive. As a field producer at various California disasters, I knew I could count on the News Channel folks to get us on the air, and at KCRA, we were on the air a lot! Their people at the trucks were almost always calm and reliable [a bonus when everything else around you is chaotic]. The folks at the bureaus were also terrific. When I traveled overseas for stories, the News Channel people always made sure we got hooked up with the right people."

Donovan Myrie was the Operations Manager at WNBC in New York before he took on a similar role at KTVT, the CBS affiliate in Dallas. Let's just say he misses News Channel.

"I've worked a lot with the men and women of NewsChannel, and they are definitely my favorite feed service," says Myrie. "First of all, most of the regional producers are located in the same location [Charlotte] which means if the Mid Atlantic producer needs something from the Great Lakes producer, they get up and walk over to their desk. It really makes for a much more friendly atmosphere, and in my opinion, keeps information flowing a lot more freely. Another neat thing about NewsChannel is the way their satellite bookings work. Most affiliates and some trucks are on an automatic system that basically brings up your signal and takes it down automatically by computer, without the use of an engineer. Kinda neat when you have to stuff 4:45 of tape into a five-minute window. NBC affiliates also seem to be stronger across the board, and there seem to be more satellite trucks out there. NewsChannel also has more Washington correspondents and will even offer up Steve Handelsman [the O&O Washington correspondent] when in a pinch."

From a West Coast producer: "NBC News Channel does an excellent job of serving the affiliates. In fact, in-house, President Bob Horner has always insisted that the affiliates be called 'customers,' and that customer service is #1. You need it, they have it-or can get it for you, quick. Lots of feeds, all day, every day. Live events are always available on some transponder, somewhere. Those folks who deal with News Channel and its regional variations [especially Pac West] are very fortunate to have this massive resource available to them. It makes the job coordinating wide- ranging news stories much easier than those stations that aren't NBC. Near perfection."

And from an Eastern Time Zone producer who's worked with just about all the services: "The network's mid-80's program of equipping affiliates in top markets with uplink facilities is really paying dividends for them now."

Sharon Houston, News Channel's executive producer, agrees with that last comment. "We are in good shape with our large number of pups, or uplinks. If a station can get a microwave signal, we can get it out [to the nation] with the pup. In Jonesboro, WMC's chopper beamed video back to the station, and then we pupped it out."

Houston believes the News Channel is very responsive to the needs of the affiliates. The affiliates wanted more coverage from Washington. Last year, NBCNC expanded its Washington bureau office. Now, four reporters and a support staff work there, making it possible to get stories from Washington seven days a week. Houston says one of the best benefits she can offer a station that's dealing with a huge story is to make the phones stop ringing with calls from stations 1,500 miles away. "We've taken the rest of the country off your back. We try to be as little hassle to the home station as we can be. One way we do that, is by getting help from neighboring stations in the first wave of coverage," says Houston.

That means a reporter and crew from a station 150 miles away might drive or fly to the scene to do the first group of live shots after the story breaks. Once the network can get a correspondent to the scene, the neighboring reporter is relieved of News Channel duty, and can work exclusively for her own station. Meanwhile, the home station is serving its own viewers with its own reporters, not worrying about whether the live shot for Dubuque went off as planned.

Not everyone is enamored of the job News Channel is doing.

An East Coast producer says, "The major problem with NBC's News Channel is the lack of experience on the part of the people who write its scripts and edit its packages. The quality is terrible."

And this from an executive producer in the Eastern Time Zone: "NBC News Channel saves money by hiring only a few full-time employees [who have never worked in local news] and mostly freelance producers [who have just graduated from college]."

Houston brushes off that criticism. "We've worked hard on scripts for several years, we're still working on it. I don't know that [our staffers are] young and inexperienced, but we're continuing to work on it."

Houston acknowledges that NBCNC hasn't always had great success with its live shots. News Channel started in 1991 in Charlotte, replacing A-News in New York. The early days were rocky. News Channel doesn't keep records of its live shot successes and failures, says Houston, "but our success rate has to be in the very high 90's now. When [our live shots] weren't working, it was when they were seen as an aside to a normal day. But now there's a unit assigned to it. They talk to the people in the field, deal with the trucks and are aware of the pitfalls. You can't help it if someone hooks up the IFB wrong, but that's in the really low percentage of failures. So we came up with a procedure that made our consistency jump tremendously."

There are some general numbers available about the numbers of live shots per year. "We hit the high-water mark in 1995, with 15,000 live shots," says Houston. "But that included O.J. Simpson. We're back to about 8,000 per year now." Those numbers include both generic and custom live shots. The custom live shot is also known as a unilateral live. It's just a regular live shot. The reporter is talking only to your anchors and viewers. No one else is taking his report at the same time. Cherie Lytle at the Omaha affiliate says, "Overall, I have had much better luck with NBC than any of the other services. They have good selection and good reaction time."

CNN NEWSOURCE

In the early days before Newsource, CNN offered its affiliates the right to record Headline News, and use its video or packages. And we did. I was an associate producer at KJRH, the NBC affiliate in Tulsa. One of my jobs every afternoon was to log Headline News from 2:30 to 3:30. Then, we'd lift the video and packages, chyrons and all, right off the aircheck. I remember getting upset if the Headline News director clipped the first audio on the package or soundbite, because then we couldn't use it! Needless to say, the service has come a long way since then. "CNN Newsource makes available dozens of news items during its hour-and-a-half feeds. The Newsource staff sends updated rundown information at regular intervals during the feed so you always know exactly what you're going to get," says one clearly satisfied customer.

"CNN tends to be friendly and helpful if we're looking for something specific. They have a decent archive system and really helped us with old video from Sarajevo when the Bosnia Peace Talks were in Dayton and we were working on special coverage," says Tina Rezash Rogal, executive producer at WDTN-TV in Dayton, Ohio.

The archives also get kudos from another producer: "Newsource has a website containing archived rundowns and scripts for access at any time."

A producer at a CBS and CNN affiliate says, when a big story broke in town, "Newsource sent a crew with a satellite truck to our city to help us cover the story. They shot video for us, shot live shots for us and their truck allowed us to do extra live shots that wouldn't have been possible with only our two microwave trucks. The field producer also found interviews for us across the country to use in our local stories. In short, we felt like partners."

"CNN has saved our newscasts [and my sanity] many, many times and I'm truly grateful for their commitment to news-both their coverage and ours!" says one producer.

A producer in the Midwest says: "[Washington correspondent] Skip Loescher is a Hall of Famer who I often use instead of [my own network's] correspondent if they are both on the same story. The Atlanta people are always friendly and helpful, regardless of the pressure they may be under. The Newsource affiliate relations people go the extra mile to ensure customer satisfaction; they visit often and seek out feedback on their performance."

On the downside, CNN Newsource is a non-exclusive service, meaning that every station in the same market can subscribe to it. So, in theory, Skip Loescher could be seen on three or more stations simultaneously, giving the same exact live report.

As one producer asserts, "CNN News Source is good, but never great. They sometimes don't know where their own reporters will be and whether they'll be available for a live shot at a given time … nor do they always know where the truck are going and when. Then again, you never know if the live shot you're taking will also be on someone else's newscast in your market. That lack of exclusivity makes CNN something of a risk."

The non-exclusivity issue also causes grumbling among news directors, who don't like paying Newsource's price when everyone else in town is getting the same video.

One producer is sometimes frustrated by his choices: Newsource and Fox News Edge. "I feel both services severely dropped the ball during the weekend Kofi Annan was in Baghdad. Most people assumed that once he left, the U.S. would attack Iraq. It was clearly a crucial and important weekend, but Fox and CNN did not offer live shots ahead of time," he says.

I was unable to reach the head of Newsource for comment.

FOX NEWS EDGE

Brian Jones, Vice President of Newsgathering for Fox News, says change is most definitely in the air. As of April 1, affiliates are now paying for the services of Fox News Edge.

"As part of the expansion, we are hiring a lot more people, adding feeds, correspondents, producers and resources," says Jones.

Why is Fox News Edge suddenly worth paying for? "Because Fox is a relatively new network. In the past it was not as resource-intensive as the others. Now that we are providing the same services as the others, we thought we could charge for those services. Now that we have a track record of success, we thought it was worthy."

Jones says the Edge has 22 different feeds, operating almost 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Edge uses Fox News correspondents. Fox News Edge and Fox News aren't really separate entities; everyone works for Fox News, and people are assigned to the Edge. The live shot numbers and failure rates apparently do exist, but they are "proprietary information, for internal consumption," Jones says.

The service is already digital, and Jones says, without hesitation, "It's the best."

One 6 PM producer in the Central Time Zone disagrees. "When the Karla Faye Tucker decision was coming down from the Supreme Court, it was going to happen during my newscast. So I said, 'Let's take a live picture from outside the prison.' I called Fox and asked for this over the phone. They thought I was nuts. So I explained that I only wanted 30 seconds for my anchors to voice over. 'But we have a reporter there!' they said. Finally I got them to split the window between us and another affiliate, so from 6:10 to 6:11 we were supposed to get an uninterrupted picture. Everything was working perfectly. I was going to hit it at 6:10:15. So I was on the phone in the break, talking to the producer there. He says he needs to get off the line and I say 'Okay, but remember I gotta have thirty seconds. Synchronize your watch with mine.' So at 6:10:20 we're in the story, the anchors are reading, and boom, the reporter steps into the picture," he says.

From another producer come memories of the Liberty Bell incident. "They sent video of the Liberty Bell with an abstract explaining that the Liberty Bell was being bought by Taco Bell. Of course, the date was April 1 [several years ago]—they had just retyped a Taco Bell press release with no verification. Their later urgent note that the story 'might not be true' sent me into gales of laughter."

That same producer has admiring words as well. "Fox News Edge has gotten its sea legs now. They are a great source for breaking news video, and they work closely with affiliates to put things on the bird that it takes CNN precious minutes to do. They also have a wealth of international video and stories, thanks to Sky TV. Their live shots are far more reliable than the old days, when it seemed like there was a 50/50 chance of getting anything."

A producer who worked for a Fox affiliate until recently says, "The bright side to the feeds were the unusual 'Fox-style' stories from affiliates, and the world news from Reuters."

CBS NEWSPATH

John Frazee is Vice President of CBS Newspath. He says his service is more accommodating to producers' needs now than in the past.

"We knew our feeds were too complicated for producers, because they could be in five different places at once. Now, they're all in a single place. If you're a producer, you know that the big story's going to be refreshed on the feed at the top of every hour," says Frazee.

Not all producers like seeing the big stories "refreshed on the feed at the top of every hour," although this feature seems to fall in the Can't-Please- Everybody-All-The-Time category. There are certainly advantages to knowing where to look in a hurry for video on the major stories of the day. The video's right there, at the beginning of every single feed tape. But when the producer's looking for something new and different, she'll have to wait until several minutes into the feed before she sees it, because those same big stories get top billing every hour.

A producer who works with both Newspath and CNN Newsource says he relies more heavily on Newsource. "CBS Newspath tends to cover one or two big stories. A typical afternoon news feed contains two or three items on one story and two or three items on another story. Then the feed is over. Most are 15-minutes long. You get a preliminary rundown and a final rundown-about 10 minutes after the feed ends. I've learned not to depend too much on video from Newspath if I'm writing the story before the feed ends."

A producer who's worked with almost every source available says of Newspath, "The story treatments are uniform and predictable [always Washington, always officials]. Some of the correspondents are inexperienced. Affiliates with uplinks are much harder to find in the CBS family than the NBC group. Extras commonly offered on other services, such as live or 'as-live' teases, are never offered. Last Friday, when I was attempting to coordinate coverage of a story, CBS hung up the phone on me, and then, upon my calling back, would not answer the phone. NBCNC eats Newspath's lunch. Maybe it's the nicer climate in Charlotte."

Another producer says, "NewsPath offers far fewer feeds, with less useful material on each one. The staff in NYC sometimes seems reluctant to help out when an affiliate needs something special. The service itself doesn't always have clean feeds of live events."

Frazee says a common misconception among stations is that Newspath plays favorites. "We're all balancing our available resources. People sometimes presume there's ill will. Big stations think you go out of your way for the small stations. The small stations think you only care about the big ones," he says.

Donovan Myrie is now the News Operations and Special Events Manager at KTVT, the CBS affiliate in Dallas. "Part of the reason NewsPath is so weak has a lot to do with the stations they have been handed: many are third- or fourth- place stations in their markets, and a lot are startups or former independents [all due to Fox's raiding many markets in the last five years and converting stations],'' says Myrie. "For instance, WCBS, KCBS, WBBM and KYW aren't dominating the ratings, and in Detroit, the CBS station doesn't even have a news department. And here in Texas, KTVT has the only satellite truck NewsPath can rely on: KENS [San Antonio] and KHOU [Houston] are both A.H. Belo stations, and will do favors for other Belo stations before they will do anything for their own network. The strange part here is that the network lets them get away with it."

"My personal opinion is that CBS NewsPath has a lot of growing to do, especially when it comes to mobilizing on breaking news. One bright spot: their specials unit is absolutely flawless. Each time we have had to travel to a big event, we are rarely surprised, and usually going in, we know what to expect," says Myrie. "As for reporters, NewsPath has added quite a few in the last twelve months and all in all they are doing a much better job."

CONUS

Although some stations use Conus as their sole domestic news service, most of Conus' members are also affiliates of one of the big three networks.

"Perhaps the biggest factor in a station's decision to join Conus is the amount of news programming it's doing," says Steve Cope, managing editor of Conus. "But each of our members is likely to cite a different aspect of the service as the key benefit: access to live shots, the outstanding regional coverage, the reliability of Conus SNG support, Conus Washington, the Weird Feed . . . whatever."

Conus stresses "Limited Membership, Unlimited Service," says Cope. Right now there are 107 member stations in the U.S., and membership is capped at 125 to ensure a high level of service.

Donovan Myrie's CBS affiliate in Dallas has been a Conus member since the beginning of the year. "In the arena of footage, you really can't complain that much about Conus. With [all its] affiliates across the country, Conus can usually move footage for most major events, and I can tell you most times move it faster than CBS Newspath. Their satellite system is a little funky: they are on SBS6 which is not the easiest satellite in the world to find, and they have this non-traditional audio frequency that all my engineers hate. As for live shots: Conus can be hit or miss. During the re