Like the learning of anything, there is always more to know than what can reasonably be taught in a classroom. This means work outside of class studying the subject matter. So I started to watch a bit of television news, and it wasn't as helpful as I might have hoped.
The problem with looking at something done by someone who more or less knows what they are doing is that I can see only that it works, but it doesn't teach me why it works. Its the equivalent of knowing the answer to a mathematical problem but not understanding how the answer is obtained.
For me, a major part of learning the process of anything is making mistakes. Compile and stay mindful of enough things that should be avoided and eventually whatever is produced can be measured as successful. It stand to reason then that more mistakes at the beginning of something means a quicker progression to that point of success.
But it can take time to make those mistakes, so in the absence of opportunity to make my own mistakes, seeing the mistakes of others is a reasonably satisfactory substitute. But if the pros aren't making the mistakes at a quick enough rate from which to learn anything, where is there to turn to see the errors of an other's ways?
Naturally, to others who are most likely to make mistakes I should avoid: students. And that means YouTube as there are heaps of broadcast and journalism school students who are eager to show off their work.
And on YouTube I found this, a segment on vicious animals done by Tara Prindiville from Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication:
Now let me be clear here, this isn't a complete loss of a story, but there are a couple of major things I took away from it that I will never do. Also, I'm not suggesting that Ms. Prindiville is a journalist of poor quality or that the Cronkite School is an inferior institution. Her other uploads are much better and what I've seen of the Cronkite NewsWatch leads me to believe they know what they're doing.
Anyway, I think I took a lot away from watching this story with a critical eye. So, for the benefit of anyone who comes across this blog and is also learning how to make news for television' here's a frame-by-frame critique of the story.
Audio of dog pulling on rope, guy says something like "get it boy, get it" to the dog then a sharp yelp by another dog.
I don't care for the sharp yelp here since its not coming from the dog that can be seen on screen. It's also a pretty harsh sound. Not a deal breaker though, but I can't think of any good reason for it to be there either.
Prindiville: When many people think of aggressive animals –
Things aren't off to a great start. In print, radio, TV or wherever, a phrase like "many people" screams to me that someone didn't do any research and is hoping that whatever they say sounds believable enough that nobody will bother to check and call them on it. Especially when referring to people in the general sense, as in the whole population. The word "most" just as bad and "everyone" is even worse. Like everyone (in the general sense) could agree on anything or be linked in any way other than basic biologic necessities like needing air to breathe. This isn't to say that I haven't slipped this sort of thing into my work before, though I make an effort to instead say "some people" and then offer up the counter point as well. I think this is better, and even if its not, it helps me sleep at night.
Audio of the dog pulling some sort of sled.
Uh, ok. I'm not really sure what that thing is or why this is happening. The whole story on YouTube clip exists in isolation of whatever the anchor might have said to throw the anchor to Prindiville before she started her story, so maybe whatever was said there gives this come context. But based on the rest of the story, the anchor probably mentioned the vicious animal bill. Because this animal is strong it's also aggressive? To me, it comes off as a sound-up just for the sake of having one, and I think I'd avoid doing it when it splits up a sentence like this one does.
Prindiville: - pit bulls are one of the first that come to mind.
Are they really? Above things like tigers? Or sharks? Or tiger sharks? Maybe Arizona was gripped in a rash of pit bull attacks like Winnipeg was in the early 90s that would make people think first of pit bulls. If it was, this isn't anywhere near as bad. But if it wasn't, why single out one specific breed of dog over others? And especially over other animal species that haven't been domesticated?
Prindiville: But its not just pit bulls that have the potential to be aggressive.
Aside from this questionable assertion and then wasting some time, what she is saying doesn't even match what's going on in the video. That pit bull isn't anywhere near a state of aggression, I'd say it looks pretty content, maybe even happy.
Female voice: Our two kids, Mike and Karen, and uh, Luke, the Brittany spaniel.
Woah, how did we get here? A medium shot of a dog to a close up of a photograph of a different dog. And who is talking? Who are these people and why do they matter? I'm a bit lost. Where was the previous place and why did it matter to this photo?
Prindiville: Rhode didn’t know Luke had a history of violence-
If I wasn't watching this story particularly to note its faults I might not have thought much of the stuff I criticised earlier, but I would have picked up on these next two things in even a casual viewing. First, when the shot cuts from the still of the photograph to the pan to the woman, there is a pop in the audio. It wasn't cut together all that well, the audio of the two speakers could have been blended into each other to avoid that error.But the bigger issue is that Prindiville hasn't shown me this Rhode person before she starts to reference her. I, as a viewer, later learn that Rhode is the owner of Luke, and the woman who was talking before Prindiville told me about the attack. But at this point of the story, its just an educated guess based on who spoke last. And I think the problem could have been fixed by simply reversing the order of these two shots.
Prindiville: - until after he attacked a young girl she was babysitting.
Again, Prindiville isn't writing to her video. I think that's one of the same kids from the first photo, so the viewer isn't being shown the person that she's talking about. At least the dog is there though. But is showing the dog at the end of a successful hunting trip really the best way to juxtapose the idea that the dog is sweet and gentle with the attack it made on the girl who was under Rhode's care?
Also, either Rhode's family are horribly dated in their fashion choices and card stock for photos or I'm being told about things that happened at least a quarter century ago. Are there that few dog bites in Arizona that this is considered new enough for the news?
Rhode: She was laying down with her face on the ground and when I turned her over - - it was just a bloody mess.
With regard to story, this works as its a great clip. Visually it looks a bit weird. She appears twisted with her torso facing the left of the frame and her head facing the right. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Prindiville and her camera operator, Rhode could have shifted into this weird posture just before making the statement. It's too good a thing not to use. Though it comes off as weirdly unemotional.
Prindiville: What Marge didn’t know when she adopted Luke from the Humane Society -
GAZE INTO MINE EYES. I have no idea why someone would be inclined to use this sort of shot unless someone was crying or their eyes had some special property. It's not flattering to the point of being creepy. It's almost enough to distract the viewer from Prindiville switching to referring to Rhode by her first name. Maybe if you're this close to someone it would feel strange not to call them by their first name. I don't plan on doing either. 
Prindiville: - was that he had bitten before.
This shot is great if for no other reason than it moves the viewer away from the previous shot. And Prindiville gives us a fact, and those are good in the news. It is a bit too dead centre but I'm going to give the camera operate the benefit of the doubt again. It looks like Rhode would fill the frame on standard definition, which would look better. This happens with lots of high-def footage and will continue to do so until HD screens are in the majority over SD screens.
Prindiville: But if you do own a dog, and that dog has attacked in the past, yet you still let it wander the streets, this new vicious dog bill is targeting you. The bill's sponsor says they're going after those who let their animals loose, as well as people who train their dogs to attack.
When Prindiville says "still let it wander the streets" she gestures to her sides, telling me that this is one of those streets that dogs might wander. I've never been to Arizona, but I was under the impression that they had the technology I know as pavement. Based on what Prindiville is showing me, I might have to rethink my earlier assumption. But seriously, I don't see either a street or any dogs. If the shot had either it would work, both would be even better. This has neither in it so again she isn't writing appropriately to her video.
She's also giving me a mixed message about the nature of the bill. Is this a vicious dog bill or a vicious animal bill? In either case it applies to dog owners, but if its a vicious dog bill, that means any jerk who is into falconry can sic his pet on people without fear of the new bill. That doesn't seem right, but why am I again having to try to figure this stuff out for myself? So there's another good thing to keep in mind, don't interchangeably use words that mean different things.
I will say though that she has a very good presence on camera. She appears quite naturally and handles a 31 word sentence like it's nothing. I'm not sure that I'd ever write something that long for myself to read, but it works very well for her. And this despite the fact she is wearing a jacket with sleeves in desperate need of some tailoring.
Montenegro: [some talking point]
Story-wise this seems well written into and it doesn't really matter what he thinks about the bill for the purpose of my little review. If I was shooting it, I'd probably have moved clockwise around him to minimize the windows to the left of the frame. It's rather blown out on that side of the frame. Again, maybe the camera operator was stuck where he or she was as part of a scrum, so I'll give him or her the benefit of the doubt.
Prindiville: Once a dog has attacked someone it is labeled as aggressive.
This is the state capitol building, maybe, or city hall. Some seat of power that the people in the market for Cronkite NewsWatch would recognize but is unknown to someone living hundreds of kilometers away. I've seen the same shot in other stories done by students producing Cronkite NewsWatch, so its some stock footage they have. It's a bit bland and something of an orphan right now but...
Prindiville: And under this new bill, if that dog bites again, the owner will no longer be charged with a misdemeanor. They'll be charged with a felony.
Hey, that's pretty cool. She's telling me that it isn't a misdemeanor anymore so it's crossed out and felony is there in big bold letters. It's driving home the actual news as what she says and what I see reinforce each other. And there is bonus information too. The bill is called HB 2044 so if I'm so interested now I have more information at my disposal and I can look up the bill if I felt so inclined.[Those who know me well will be pleased to know that their guess was right and I did look up HB 2044. The bill relates only to dogs, so this really calls into question why Prindiville uses the word animals in as general a sense as she does. To the best of my knowledge the bill is not yet law. Also, Prindiville is off in Madagascar doing something with the Peace Corps. She lists her mailing address on her blog if you want to send her letters telling her that I'm picking apart her work. But don't send any tampons or frisbees, she apparently has more than enough of those.]
Prindiville: Rhode says she's proof that any kind of dog has the potential to be aggressive.
Back to this meaningless phrase again. Too bad, things were starting to get better. Equally bad is that a shot is essentially being reused. These pictures have been shown to us once before, there is nothing to be gained by panning from one to the next. It's better than straight up reusing a shot, but not by much. This reinforces with me the necessity of shooting lots and lots of b-roll. I never seem to have enough and it leads to including some marginal shots, like this one.
Rhode: Luke was a Brittany spaniel, that's not a, what I consider an aggressive breed.
Noted Chandler resident Marge Rhode serves up some wisdom on the nature of a breed of dog of which she has already had one incorrect assumption. I have very mixed feelings about asking Joe or Jane Public about something likely beyond their scope of experience and education, but it happens so often that I'm lead to believe that its something that people want. I can see how the people doing the talking appreciate the chance, but the plural of anecdote isn't data so I don't really know what it brings to the audience. I don't go up to random strangers and ask them to influence my opinion on important matters, I don't know why I think it's appropriate to force the voice of a nobody on my audience. And I'd hate to be responsible for being the guy that allowed the ball to get rolling on some nonsense like autism being caused by vaccines, which is what can happen when people who have no idea what they are talking about are allowed a venue where they can spout their warped and uninformed beliefs.
But back to the story... her body is twisted again, leading me to believe that the earlier shot wasn't just the best of a bad situation. Her body, like her head, should be facing the right side of the frame. In light of her not really speaking from a position of authority on the subject, and the poor look of the video, I'm not really sure why we're back to her what Rhode has to say. I can imagine good reasons to go back to someone who was seen earlier in a story, but this isn't one of those instances.
Prindiville: And under this new bill, it doesn't matter the kind of dog -
A puppy! Puppies bite everything because they don't have hands and that's how they explore the world. It sucks, but they don't bite hard and they don't do it once their curiosity about a thing is satisfied. I guess I'm being shown again that place from the beginning, I recognize some of the stuff around the location, whatever it is. I still have no idea what location this is but I've been given the news of the matter so I don't hold out a whole lot of hope in ever finding out. 
Prindiville: - if it attacks again, harsher penalties will follow.
So the dog is doing something that could be considered aggressive, I guess. I still don't know why I'm seeing this and since she's reiterating what it is that she's said already, I'm not ever going to find out what's going on in this video. If it really didn't matter what was going on in the background, as long as it had dogs doing physical things, the editor could have just cut it any random dog footage. I'm betting there's actually an angle here that is going unexplored.
Prindiville: Tara Prindiville, Cronkite News.
That's the end of the story? But I still have questions: Where was that place with the pit bulls?
What do they do at that place?
Are they in danger of shutting down if that bill becomes a law?
When did that attack on the little girl that Rhode was babysitting happen?
Was the little girl ok?
Why didn't Rhode know that Luke was a known biter?
How did she even find out that Luke had bitten before at all?
Was Rhode charged under the old law?
If she wasn't, why not?
If she was, what happened to her?
What happened to Luke?
Who cares about the names of Rhode's kids if they don't factor into the rest of the story?
That's about a dozen questions too many to come up from a news story and there is no particularly good reason that any of them should have gone unanswered or even asked at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment