Sorry, but it doenst just stop at the TOTH either:
- The Marketboard nearly always fails leaving the presenter looking foolish and "umming".
- The Astons overlap and the Live Dog is always coming on and off.
- The Clock keeps fading in and out at random times.
The only decent thing about News 24 is the weather and even that is rarely Live anymore.
...and it doesn't stop there! The other night on the paper review, the complex task of switching camera shots was clearly too much for the elite gallery staff, we instead got a picture of a darkened second set (yes they do leave the screens turned on if you were wondering), followed by a darkened weather studio (yes they do leave the CSO running if you were wondering) which was clearly cut to in panic, and finally the shot they were after.
It really grates with me when people who know about the equipment News 24 use constantly claim "there's nothing you can do" when it's a software problem, either as a schedule programming problem or a macro problem, but this is like anything else - if a fault is recurring you should work to fix it.
And if YOU can't personally fix it, you enlist the expertise of somebody who CAN - i.e. "We seem to get trailers cueing themselves up on the Preview monitor when a Headline sequence is less than 30 sec long, and we have to jump in quick to override it before we switch to that line - could you check and amend what the software's programmed to do?"
It's no good to say "these things are bound to happen". If these things are KNOWN to be liable to happen, then it's human error - not machine error at all. Knowing that a machine will, 4 times in every 10, work against its controller leaving them to have to paper over cracks in order to keep things ticking over properly is negligence - if this was back in the days of VTRs, it would not have been tolerated.
Back in the days when VTR machines were new technology (I'm talking late 50s/early 60s), television stations used to run a TK telerecording of the programme in tandem - or - for a VERY short time - would actually have the actors in full costume, on set, ready to re-perform a programme live if the VTR failed.
Those days are long gone, and the clandestine ways of the past such as those described are no longer necessary, and thankfully so. However, there seems to be this totally apathetic attitude these days, which says, if this computer system here keeps cocking things up, it's not our problem, it's the way the computer's been programmed, if people keep noticing cock-ups 3 times a day it doesn't matter because it's not my fault, it's the computer's.
Surely operators and server/automation system technicians should be working together, i.e. communicating, routine issues and revisions of requirements, changes to specifications, etc?
I'm sure a lot of that goes on, but probably mainly about branding, DOGs, Astons, etc. and not to do with scheduling, item cueing, and the more basic 'nuts and bolts' of the operation.
Remember that very often some of us are branded "anoraks" for being so wound up about this sort of thing, but in actual fact it will be the average viewer, not a pres anorak, who will notice these things more, all the 'longeurs' and dead times that occur (like the intro to World Business Report - the "I'm in London.. I'm in New York" exchange always being awkward and sloppy) - the average viewer will just think "that looked/sounded sloppy". The average viewer doesn't know about automation systems, video servers, etc., and shouldn't have to. They should be able to expect output that looks like mistakes aren't expected to happen, rather than output that looks like the team are always waiting FOR the next mistake or moment of confusion.
An analogy of the place where I work is that the company seem to be more obsessed with constantly changing what logo they want on our documentation, yet couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether the spelling, grammar and general layout are correct, clear or useful.
Well the mistake on the papers was a simple vision mixing error. Human error is bound to happen on all programmes and some directors are better vision mixers than others. You get vision mixing errors on all programmes, I saw one on Fame Academy the other day, and you get more errors in a half hour live big brother than in 24 hours of News24.
Don't forget the person doing the Vision mixing is also doing the cameras, running the automation system and directing the programme, all without any form of rehearsal. It may be too many jobs for some people but that's the fault of those who run the channel not the staff on it
Automation will always lead to more mistakes on air, because it takes out the human element. A friend of mine remarked that for something to go wrong on a live programme, it used to need several people not doing their jobs properly. Now it needs just one persons laps in concentration to get a mistake on air, because nothing is checked.
So a journalist who writes a headline, but puts in an instruction for 2nd headline clip when it is the first one will cause a mistake on air. In the past it wouldn't because you would have a tx area checking the clip and a vision mixer mixing to it. Now the automation will try to do it itself.
This applies to all stations. There are far more mistakes on BBC1 or 2 now than would have ever been tolerated 10 years ago. And the reason they allow it is money. If staffing levels were as they were 10 years ago then the TV companies would never be able to afford all they do now. So the managers are prepared to accept a few mistakes in order to do all they want to do
When News 24 first started, didnt some people complain that they were watching, and the signal started getting mixed up with some European porn channel? I think I remember Gavin Esler complain about it when he was a guest on Have I Got News For You. It must have been a shock for viewers, expecting a digest of the news instead to find a naked woman probably digesting a naked man's....
I'm not asking this question for the sake of asking; it's most likely been asked in the past - how much would a News Director expect as salary? How wide ranging is the scale of pay dependent on experience?
