US Anchors vs UK Newsreaders

I think this is mostly bollocks quite frankly. Has he ever watched American news? Parochial, shallow, superficial, glitzy. Fantastically well produced, very slick with great headline sequences, but the content's dire. American reporters seem incapable of putting together decent packages. They're invariably short, cliched, shoddily put together. Nothing like as refined as a piece by - say - Matt Frei or Bill Neely (who, if you'll forgive me a slight digression, seems to have disappeared recently).

I'm not unaware of the faults of British tv news, but holding America up as some sort of paragon of virtue seems absurd.

I'm Unfortuanly american, and the news stinks. I only watch RTE and BBC news.

We value speed above all else. Trust me, I just came off a success in my first package for my University's TV Station, and I would love to delve into it more, but you use different methods of storytelling to make sure the entire thing can wrap up in about 1:20.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, there is, because not all stories can be wrapped in 1.20. No matter what method of storytelling you use. Go on, delve into it more. We have plenty of time here.

marksi, I think there lies the difference in the length. Normal news packages are supposed to be really short and to the point, with the exception of investigative reporting, which, by its very nature, needs more time.

Then, there are those news packages that take up the better part of the hour, and are showcased in special programmes, like 20/20 or Dateline (all in the US). The thing about the business is if you want to delve into it more, there are areas for that, but it is not with normal news. Sad, but you use different methods, as I mentioned earlier, to make up for the lost time.

There are many creative ways of telling a story that can make sure the message gets to the people. Afterall, a picture does worth a thousand words.

Typical length for a news package on TV? Probably 2-3 minutes. Maybe University TV has different demands to the real thing?

I can't imagine that you could effectively tell the story of the current constitutional crisis in Nepal, or the complexities surrounding suicide bombings in the Middle East, or report on the latest political crisis for the Government, in 1:20. Especially if you want to include a range of opinions or produce anything even approaching engaging.

The stories you report on for your uni TV station might fit well into an 80 second package, but a BBC 10 O'Clock News programme with packages limited to this length would be an unwatchable mess of trivialised titbits.

As Bob Paisley says, trying to tell the story in the shortest time possible leaves the way open for cliches and a skimming over of detail. Sure, there is a place for shorter packages, indeed BBC Three's news programme is merely 60 seconds in length. But I can't see any way in which you can successfully argue that the best news packages are the shortest.

It is an interesting discussion.

BBC Three's Sixty Seconds have to try and tell a story in 9 seconds, Newsnight often have more than 9 minutes. They are different shows trying to do different things.

The great thing about the UK is that we have a choice. 9" on BBC Three, 2'00" on BBC One, and 9'00" on BBC Two (and what seems like 9 days on BBC Four!)

The point about the US is that there are very few outlets that give you much more than 2'00"... You don't get the depth on many outlets at all.

If you've ever been to the US, and I'm sure you have (after all, who hasn't) and watched any of the US news networks/shows, You can't have failed to notice how obsessed they are with events in Iraq. Just about every bulletin/programme leads, and ends with something concerning Iraq. It's a nation that really doesn't give a damn about anyone else other than itself.
Having been there many times to visit family on a frequent basis, it all get rather dull and tedious hearing about events in Iraq and how it going to effect the great BIG (often wide-arsed) American person.
Maybe we go too far the other way. Certainly the BBC tend to concentrate on issues too much abroad (and you can't beat a good environmental issue on any BBC news programme) I have to say, despite the cutbacks, ITV news have the balance just about right!

We actually mirror real world requirements during this entire matter. I have seen really professional broadcasts that cut down their stories to 1:00 only.

What they usually do in this situation is to get the extremes of opinions and let it speak for themselves.

I have a report that I did lately, and it can tell the story rather quickly with mny different storytelling skills. It is not Dateline , so bear with me.

http://members.cox.net/kennywong/immigrationprotest.mov

There are people here better qualified than I to comment on news issues but that is, to me, is likely to result in irresponsible and sensationalist journalism.

That is why me and my friends at the station always include a third party, a middle ground person, in all broadcasts.