The Newsroom

US Anchors vs UK Newsreaders

Article in The Sunday Times Culture mag. (April 2006)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BP
Bob Paisley
channel2tv posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
I think this is mostly **** 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.


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.



I'm not just criticising the brevity or speed of the reports, I'm critical of the rather unimaginative and plodding way the reports are put together. It's just link-clip-link-clip-link, usually written with no style or panache. When I was taught about writing to picture and putting together packages, we were told about sequences, letting pictures breathe. So many US reports ignore these rules - leading to poor work.
PH
phoenixrises
Bob Paisley posted:
channel2tv posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
I think this is mostly **** 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.


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.



I'm not just criticising the brevity or speed of the reports, I'm critical of the rather unimaginative and plodding way the reports are put together. It's just link-clip-link-clip-link, usually written with no style or panache. When I was taught about writing to picture and putting together packages, we were told about sequences, letting pictures breathe. So many US reports ignore these rules - leading to poor work.


It's, above all, a time problem. If we had all the time and attention in the world, we would make a long story, but we don't. We have limited demand, so we need to limit supply. It's simple economics. Sad, but that's life.
NG
noggin Founding member
channel2tv posted:
CyberCD posted:
Typical length for a news package on TV? Probably 2-3 minutes. Maybe University TV has different demands to the real thing?


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


An average UK Network News package would be well in excess of 1'00" in almost every situation apart from a straight voice-over piece - like an "and finally" wrap of some agency pictures.

To introduce and set-up a couple of decent bits of sync, without butt-joining them (usually a sign of poor packaging over here) and put the story into some form of context, you're pushing it to a decent job in 1'00" without trivialising or precising, unless the story is very straightforward. Sure you're not going to get any decent detail or analysis in a 2'00" or 3'00" package - but you might actually detail how the story has developed and explain why it is actually newsworthy.

I'm not saying you can't tell a story in 1'00", just that you can often tell it better if you have a bit more time.

One common complaint about US packaging - from a UK viewpoint - is that there are few coherent picture sequences, natural sound is often not allowed to breathe, and sync is often cut-to-pieces, with people not finishing phrases, let alone forming a coherent sentence.
TE
Telefis
I could not agree more - this is what makes British television news the (generally) highly respected institution that it is. It's all about breathing space, sequences, working with the pictures etc. Essentially the idea is to make a mini programme, rather than a quick slapdash VT, which alas is what we get with RTÉ News in spite of the UK channels having set the standard for many years in Ireland.

And for a national public service broadcaster its reports are way too short in the main - a typical Six One has reports (in mins & secs) of :

1.30
1.50
1.20
1.55
1.30
1.30
1.50
2.30
1.40
3.20
2.00

Extracting two 'close-up' reports, most of the stuff is around 1.30, with way too much skimming on issues. It's even worse for the Nine where there's generally no in-depths at all and nearly the entire bulletin is comprised of 1.30-1.50 reports.

As mentioned by others, such lengths (generally, not always), have a lack of substance and no sense of decent production values. Their limited time results in an absence of any appreciation of the images or ambient sounds. Very simply, cut cut cut and butt butt butt leads to crass crass crass.
PH
phoenixrises
Telefís posted:
I could not agree more - this is what makes British television news the (generally) highly respected institution that it is. It's all about breathing space, sequences, working with the pictures etc. Essentially the idea is to make a mini programme, rather than a quick slapdash VT, which alas is what we get with RTÉ News in spite of the UK channels having set the standard for many years in Ireland.

And for a national public service broadcaster its reports are way too short in the main - a typical Six One has reports (in mins & secs) of :

1.30
1.50
1.20
1.55
1.30
1.30
1.50
2.30
1.40
3.20
2.00

Extracting two 'close-up' reports, most of the stuff is around 1.30, with way too much skimming on issues. It's even worse for the Nine where there's generally no in-depths at all and nearly the entire bulletin is comprised of 1.30-1.50 reports.

As mentioned by others, such lengths (generally, not always), have a lack of substance and no sense of decent production values. Their limited time results in an absence of any appreciation of the images or ambient sounds. Very simply, cut cut cut and butt butt butt leads to crass crass crass.


Has anyone viewed the video I posted? I mean, we let the natural noise sink in as well, even with the time restraints!

Newer posts