The feedback dilemma

At the end of the work day today, I ran into my news director on my way out of the building.

“Nice live shots,” he said. “1400 coats, wow.” (I had been heading our station’s coverage of a Coats For Kids drive.)

It wasn’t until I was almost to my car that I realized I was smiling.

Now the reason for this was twofold. One: It was a rare moment, indeed. A genuine compliment, minus any thinly veiled criticism? I’ll take it. And two: It reminded me of this.

Just two days ago, I read Jill Geisler‘s article “5 ‘praise erasers’ reveal how bosses undermine positive feedback.” It was one of those moments where I sat in front of my computer, nodding like an idiot. “Yes, Jill! This is my LIFE!” Her opening paragraph just about sums it up:

“Who among you gets too much feedback at work? I’ve asked this question of groups time and again, always with the same result: No hands go up.”

In an all-staff news department meeting a couple of months ago, my boss (aforementioned news director) leaned casually against a desk and said, “I’d like to talk about morale. Where do we feel morale is around here?”

I was the only one who raised my hand.

I picked my words cautiously: “Now, I know this is easier said the done, because, after all, it is our job to find out what’s wrong in the world and talk about it…but a kind word really does go a long way.”

What's a dog gotta do to get a bone around here? (Courtesy: Victor Bezrukov, flickr.com)

He furrowed his brow and told us that from what he’s heard from other news directors, we’re not the only ones who aren’t being praised left and right.

In a separate meeting about the weekend shows, I brought up the same point.

“I think I do a pretty good job of that,” he said. “At the same time, I’m not going to give you guys cupcakes every time you do your job.”

Touche. But fair.

That’s what I loved about Geisler’s post. She points out the fact that not all feedback is created equal.

“Don’t erase your praise by the way in which you deliver it,” she says.

All the points she makes are great, but I think her last one is the easiest to fall prey to: “Praise with a big ‘but.'”

The last piece of feedback I remember receiving from my boss (before today) was in email form. “I liked your meth story today, especially the neighbour and the map,” he wrote. “But why no tag out for the 11?” Can you guess which part of this email I spent my time thinking about?

The bottom line is, feedback matters. I appreciated reading a post that pointed that out. But I’d be lying if I told you I hadn’t sort of given up expecting any sort of praise as long as I work in this industry.

Still, at the end of the day, it’s amazing how good a “Nice live shot” feels.

Is there such thing as a “home life”?

I take my work home with me every night.

I compulsively check my work email daily. Multiple times a day. That includes days off, mornings before work, and evenings when I get home.

When I meet a new work contact, and hand them my card, I usually say, “My cell phone number’s on there. Feel free to use it. I work weekends and I have my cell phone on me 24-7, so if I miss your call, I should get back with you shortly.”

I even dream about work. I can’t count the number of dreams I’ve had where I run out to anchor a show, only to find that I have wet hair and I’m not wearing any make-up, I forgot to produce the show until 10 minutes to air, and on top of it all the prompter’s not working. (Okay, that last part isn’t always necessarily a dream…)

So last week I created this:

I taped it up, just inside my front door, and (no joke!) I even placed a cardboard box on the floor under the arrow.

We work in an industry where we’re forced to not only read about, but rehash and regurgitate a number of issues that can weigh on the mind. I personally have reported on the rape of a 4-year-old girl, a drunk hit-and-run that killed a 14-year-old, a soldier returning home from Afghanistan missing a leg…the list goes on.

Within the past few weeks, a couple of my reporter friends posted on Facebook about the kind of days they were having–one reporting on the death of a young child, and the other on the murder of a pregnant woman. We’ve all been there. How do you leave that in a box when you come home?

A co-worker recently brought to my attention a Ball State University professor’s book that shows journalists suffer from Post Traumatic Stress and depression from covering traumatic events, just as first responders do:

“People may think that reporters are only out for a good story and don’t feel anything when they’re covering a tragedy,” Massé said. “The outdated newsroom view is that if you show any empathy, you aren’t a good reporter. That’s wrong because understanding what a victim is going through actually makes you a better reporter. And it makes you a better person.”

It may seem petty compared to some of the tragedy we cover, but with the high energy and big personalities in a television newsroom, conflict is never in short supply (or, let’s face it, gossip). So if you’re not stewing over a tough story, it’s hard not to replay an argument, coverage decision, or other high-energy newsroom moment when you get home.

I still remember, when I was just an intern at a central Illinois station, one of the most aggressive and go-getter reporters there said to me (and the videographer we were with), “You know, I’m starting to wonder if I want to live to work or work to live.” Two years later, she left the business.

Maybe that’s why so many people who start out in television don’t make it to “lifer” status. They want to work to live.

I would argue we can do both. Or at least, I’m hoping my hand-made sign will allow me to do so. Live to work, sure, while you’re working. Then come home, drop your worries in a box, and enjoy the simple pleasures life can offer. Your email can wait a few hours. (After all, if big news breaks, your manager will probably call your cell phone.)

The value of a good ole man on the street

About a week ago, I did a story about an area motel that was infested by bed bugs. The finished product garnered a lot of traffic to my station’s Web site, and one of my supervisors gave me great feedback on my shooting and writing for the story. But (according to him), there was one thing missing: The two cents of local residents on what THEY think.

The absence of a man-on-the-street (or MOS, as we most affectionately call them) was something that I had noted as well; I told my editor that I (truthfully) “wanted to get some MOSes, but I just ran out of time.” Had I had only one interview (I had three), a few decent MOSes would have filled in the package nicely. Sometimes the best sound in a package comes from the concerned man (or woman!) on the street: “I just can’t believe it. Now I’m scared that our entire town will be infested by bed bugs.” (That’s where you say, “Thanks for your time; I’ve got all I need!”) In fact, I’ve done entire packages–some of my best–that consisted entirely of MOS interviews reacting to just a couple of facts that I present (One of my favorite stories I ever did was about the pedestrians at Purdue having issues with properly crossing the street–that sound was a priceless example of why TV relies on video!)

But here’s the thing about man-on-the-street interviews: In my young, journalistic opinion, they can let you down. It’s kind of like reminiscing about a time when an old friend really helped you out, then going over to his place for a ride, only to find his car can barely start, is littered with trash and smells like old Chinese food. Sure, it’ll get the job done, but do you really want it to?

Sitting in the morning news meeting, pitching a story, it’s really easy to imagine all the great sound you’ll get when you go out to get MOSes. “People aren’t going to be able to keep their mouths shut about the 2012 election/a new trash collecting system/the ethical treatment of goats! This is going to be an amazing story!” Then, three hours later, when you’re standing outside a strip mall with your microphone, being shut down by yet another person who’s late for lunch, knowing the only interview you have is from a 17-year-old chick who didn’t know what you were talking about but was willing to talk on camera probably because there’s an 80 percent chance she was high, and then it starts to rain and suddenly there’s no one else in sight…MOSes don’t seem like as great of an idea.

Anyway, I digress.

Sometimes, sometimes, man-on-the-street interviews can be a great addition to a story. In the case of the bed-bugs-take-over-small-town-motel, they probably would have elicited a decent response from people if I had had the extra hour necessary to set up camp. But in a way, MOSes can be a symptom of journalistic laziness. What would have been the best interview, would have been to have found someone who stayed at the bed-infested motel. “I felt violated,” she might have said. Or, “I simply couldn’t believe a place that I paid good money would have so little respect for my well-being.” Golden!

If you're looking for a man on the street, you could get the valued opinion of THIS guy! Courtesy: Joshua Rappeneker, Flickr.com

In graduate school, my broadcasting teachers wouldn’t let us report a story unless we could tell them who our “face” would be. That is, the regular Joe Schmoe who’s had his life majorly affected because of the story we’re about to tell our loyal viewers. It’s effective, no question. To see the emotions of someone struggling or grieving or rejoicing or fighting–“And hey! Listen to the rest of this story, because this could happen to you!”

The face is what tells the story. And as a deadline-oriented one-man-band, I’ll be the first to tell you that we can’t always find the face. Sometimes a man-on-the-street is the next best thing. But if it’s not quite…there, your audience will know.

Because I’ve had people in the community notice how heavily we rely on the man-on-the-street. People have joked that the fewer teeth a person has, the more likely they are to talk to our news station. If someone asks, “Where do you find these people?” it might be a good indication that, in that instance, you shouldn’t have gone looking.

News + Running = Necessary stress relief?

Over the last several months, my Facebook has been interfering with my self esteem.

Let me explain. I’ve noticed more and more of my friends have been grabbing their running shoes and hitting the pavement (yes, those were intentionally-placed, too-often-used news cliches). Often, these aren’t the 30-minutes, twice-a-week, keep-off-the-calories runs either. I know dozens of people who have been training for, and completing 5Ks, half marathons, marathons, and even in some cases, triathlons.

So what does this tangent have to do with a blog about TV news? Well, despite the fact that (believe it or not!) I have many Facebook friends who are not in the news industry, I’m noticing that most of my run-happy friends are the ones who work in news. About a year ago, it seemed like at least half of the on-air staff at my old station in central Illinois trained for a half marathon at the same time. I have no statistics to back up this speculation, but to me, the number of “newsies” who like/love/need to run in their spare time is striking.

I’d include myself in that group, as well. In fact, I just got home from a 2+ mile run with my dog on this beautiful, end-of-summer evening. I ran my first 5K earlier this year. And maybe next year I’ll take the leap and train much, much harder, for my own half marathon.

My dad and me finishing my first 5K last spring

My favorite thing about running is the way I feel afterward. In my opinion, running makes you feel like you’re literally “blowing off steam.” With every step, and every (labored) breath, I feel like the tension of my day is broken down a little more, and by the end of it all, my body is too exhausted for my news-trained mind to keep racing, as it has been conditioned to do.

(I also attend yoga class religiously twice a week, for a similar reason; though, yoga calms me down to a clear head, whereas running pumps me up to get there.)

I am a firm believer that for most of us, our mind is our worst enemy, and perhaps more than a toned body, that is a big reason why many of my news friends have taken up running. As a one-man-band reporter, I typically have a stack of about a dozen things in my mental to-do list at any given time. My work day is a series of mental back-timing to make sure I will be able to get my stories in on time. And in some cases, if you’re working a heavy story that involves violence or corruption, that weighs on you too, whether you’d like to let it or not. For many of us in this industry, the job itself can add to additional personal stresses, like money worries or disappointment in not seeing your family or friends as much as you’d like. All of these things aren’t issues that you just drop at the front door when you come home. We need an outlet of some kind, and I think maybe this is where running comes in.

So what do you think, news friends? Am I hitting some truth here? Or am I just trying to justify why I need to keep up with my Facebook friends in the race to stay physically fit? (Your comments are welcomed!)

Monetizing news through mobile delivery?

Came across an interesting AP article in The Seattle Times this week (via Mediagazer), about an Associated Press Managing Editors meeting where the media managers said they have a chance to boost revenue with mobile news, after missing out on opportunities to monetize internet news coverage.

Granted, this article seemed quite newspaper-based (did the quote, “Newspapers aren’t dead” give it away?) but the push to find better ways to monetize news is nothing new for any of us, and I believe it is a major–if not the main–reason for the push toward hiring more and more one-man-band reporters in local TV news. But hey, also mentioned in article is the fact that the APME board voted to change its name to the Associated Press Media Editors, “to better reflect the organization’s varied membership, which includes broadcasters as well as college students and professors.” So way to go broadcasters! We’re apparently real journalists now!

But anyway, more on money. In my graduate program at Northwestern, they made us take one business-focused class. Most of us couldn’t stand the course, were often bored to tears, but believe it or not–I learned quite a bit from it. We learned that more and more news consumers are turning to the web for content, and that the possibilities for where to find news are endless–making your audience more spread out and less likely to pay any attention to your advertisers. And for anyone in any area of media, you know the advertisers practically sign your pay check.

Is this the future of our paychecks? (Courtesy: Brooks Elliott, flickr.com)

So this article claims, despite the fact that we couldn’t corral this audience on the big, bad internet, our mobile news platforms are the grand opportunity we’ve been waiting for: “[AP President and CEO Tom] Curley said the AP will announce in the coming weeks partnerships with dozens of newspapers to bring mobile advertising content to mobile devices. He assured the news executives that the mobile news delivery will be profitable.”

I’m glad these news executives were “assured.” You can almost hear the quivering confidence in their voices: “Kate Marymont, Gannett Co. vice president for news, said newspapers should sharpen their focus on what they do best, and outsource cheaply produced ‘commodity information’ such as sports scores and weather.”

But let me tell you a big secret. One that your bosses probably haven’t let you in on. Come closer…

The news companies are still making profits. Big ones.

According to the New York Times Business section, our friends at Gannett Company, Inc. are making a 10.47 percent profit margin. What can we compare that to? Well, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable company in the United States last year, only had a profit margin of 8.84 percent.

Quick economics lesson: Profit margin tells us how much money a company actually keeps in earnings compared to its total revenue. Gannett took in a hefty $5.4 billion in the last 12 months (again, according to NYT), so that means the company’s earnings were more than $565 million. Still feel bad for them?

Here’s a few more: Sinclair Broadcast Group, with a 10.38 percent profit margin on $778.1 million in earnings; Belo Corporation with a 9.83 percent profit margin on $687.9 million in earnings; Gray Television Inc. with a 7.76 percent profit margin on $345.9 million in earnings; LIN TV Corp, with a 7.52 percent profit margin on $425.5 million in earnings; Fisher Communications Inc. with a 7.55 percent profit margin on $177.7 million in earnings.

Now I’m not doing the books for any of these companies, and I fully understand that the financial picture for a company is a little more complex than this. My point is simply: Media companies are making money. If we go back to that wonderful graduate media business class I took, we learned that the problem for media execs today is that they’re not making the 30+ percent profit margins that they made back in the day (you know, when the “Big Three” were all you could watch on TV and it was almost unheard of not to eat breakfast over the morning paper?). Back then, getting into news was like robbing a bank. Today, not so much; we have to fight for our profits like everyone else. Unfortunately, those of us looking to find or hold onto a job in this industry are the ones who are paying the price.

So let’s raise a glass to the mobile news plan. Maybe this will lead to a raise.

Beware the dreaded “Wallpaper Video!

Back during my days at the University of Illinois, one of my favorite teachers warned us about this. He called it “Wallpaper Video,” and at the time I thought it was just a lame excuse to dock us on our packages.

Now that I’ve been reporting for nearly two years, and on a daily basis serve as my own editor, it’s become one of my biggest pet peeves.

The way my teacher explained it, wallpaper video is essentially “video just to have video.” In other words, it’s B-roll you use in a story that may be semi-related to what you’re talking about, used mainly for the purpose of not having the viewer look at a black screen while you talk.

As I continue to find ways to better my shooting and editing, and as I overlook the work of several of my colleagues when I wear my “Weekend Anchor/Producer” hat, I’m learning that the concept of “see it, say it” is one of the easiest ways to create a more visually interesting story.

Video is so blah when it's used just for the sake of having video! (Courtesy mmcarlos, flickr.com)

The story I worked on yesterday was a great example of an opportunity to take advantage of this concept. I was reporting on a series of crimes that involved a young man stealing a car, hitting some mailboxes in a separate neighborhood, then shoplifting from a local convenience store. It involved a lot of driving around, but it was important to me to get video of the neighborhood where the car was stolen from, the neighborhood where the hit-and-run crashes took place (and the tire marks the perp left in his wake!), AND the mini mart where he stole some cigarettes.

But, with the fear of “Wallpaper Video” particularly strong in my mind, I wanted to make sure that not only did I have the right pieces of video, but I tailored my writing to the video that I had. Police provided me with awesome surveillance footage, so in my package, I spent some time describing exactly what happened, so you could hear my description as you watch the story unfold before you on the screen.

At the end of the day, it was one of the better packages that I’ve edited. But even as I watched it over again, I was kicking myself for a few places where I “wallpapered” the package.

Watch for this now. Once you start to think about it, you’ll notice it over and over again, from small-market TV to national news. Due to deadlines and other factors, sometimes it’s simply unavoidable. But you’ll also notice how great a story looks when you’re seeing what you’re hearing.

In most cases, wallpaper video, while not the most interesting thing to look at, doesn’t come across as majorly wrong. But occasionally, it’s downright comical.

One example from my graduate program at Northwestern comes to mind. It was the first day of one of my broadcast classes in Chicago, and we were asked to go out and find a story, then come back and edit a package. One of my classmates went to the zoo. Her interviews were all with zoo-goers, but apparently she didn’t get any other video of the people she interviewed. So when she introduced one of the people in the package, it went something like this: “Jane Doe was really enjoying the day at the Lincoln Park Zoo.” But instead of seeing Jane Doe when her name was spoken, we saw a lion! The teacher brought it up, and we all couldn’t help but laugh.

It’s not always as funny as a zoo animal, but I see this all the time. You’re introducing a source, and you see another person on the screen. In this case, it can even be misleading, depending on what you’re talking about. Of course, it always comes down to deadline, deadline, deadline. And sometimes “see it, say it” is the first victim of a time crunch.

“And I do it all in heels!”

Often I notice, in the journalism world today (or at least the part of that world I’ve been exposed to), the group of us who fall into the one-man-band category make up what feels like an exclusive club. The funny part about that statement is, our “club” is probably about as exclusive as the percentage of Italian grandmothers who make good meatballs. But I’d be lying if I said I’ve never caught myself in a moment of confidence–okay, sometimes full-blown arrogance–when comparing myself to my reporter counterparts who never have to touch a camera.

It’s the part of me that occasionally whips up a sentence like, “I upped the shutter speed a touch so I wouldn’t have to increase the gain all the way, and with my iris open it really made a difference in quality. Add that to my slow-zoomed rack focus, and I think the end product will look pretty good. If only we could shoot in Quicktime and weren’t confined to MPEGs”–even when I really only have half a clue what I’m talking about.

My multimedia colleagues and I are probably just trying to convince ourselves that when it feels like we’re working non-stop for little recognition and even less pay, we’ve got our mad camera skills to fall back on as a (please-God-let-this-be-true) security net in a business that sometimes seems as certain as skipping rocks.

Or maybe the girly-girls within us ladies like the fact that this aspect of our job makes us feel kind of tough. As I walked out the door of the newsroom this afternoon, camera slung over my shoulder and tripod in hand, two of my lovely one-man-band cohorts laughed with me, pointing out that they too have had person after person ask that inevitable question, “They make you do it all by yourself??” And the pride in their voices was barely disguised when they both said, almost at the same time, “And I do it in heels!”

Is this what I’ve been missing?

After my newsroom’s morning meeting this morning, our Assistant News Director asked me if I’d like to have our newest videographer help me out with my story today. It had been a morning of oversleeping, fighting with the dog, and overall just dragging my butt, so on this day, I was relieved to be offered the help, and quickly accepted.

Now, even on a day like today, when I’m clearly riding the struggle bus, there is this little nagging voice in the back of my head that sometimes whispers that two isn’t always better than one. Especially knowing this particular photog had less than a week of training, I had questions: “Will he remember to focus? Will he use the proper mic settings? Am I going to babysit him to make sure he gets the shots I want?” On days like today, I remember that my favorite part of being a one-man-band boils down to one word: control. Sure, sometimes my stuff can be sloppy when I’m rushed and overworked, but at the end of the day, if I’m unhappy with my work, I have no one to blame but myself.

So imagine my surprise when, upon looking over my partner’s video after a long day of shooting together, I come across the standup he shot. My thought process went something like this: “Look at that slow zoom! Wow! That fountain in the background sure makes me look like a somebody! Man, I don’t know what it is, but I feel like a national news correspondent!”

Hours later, I know what it is: the zoom itself. You see, when you’re shooting by yourself, it’s hard to get a standup in focus, so forget about a zoom, unless you do it digitally in post-production (which, of course, never seems to look as good as the real thing). In fact, let’s be honest, as a one-man-band, the standup so often becomes an afterthought that it’s much more common to make a package without one than with one.

Is that a fantastic standup or what? What a difference a zoom makes!

As I went through the day’s video, and wrote and edited my package, it occurred to me that not only did I have a killer standup (it’s going to take me at least until the end of this post to get over that zoom!), but I had four sound bites in my package and every one of them was from a different person.

That’s two “expert” sources, two “man on the street” interviews AND a standup in one package. My first thought was, I don’t think I could have come up with so much content if I had been working by myself. My second thought was, Yes, I could have, and I have in the past. However, I sincerely felt like I had more time to tighten up my writing and improve my editing (my video was all file from 9-11 and Purdue University, so I guess I really didn’t have to worry about hovering over my photog’s shoulder and making sure he was getting the shots I wanted, after all).

So today was one of those days where I really did understand why the “old” model worked/works so well. There are very few people out there who are great shooters and great writers. Sure, you have great shooters and good writers, or good shooters and great writers, but if we could all do both with excellence, the news business would have taken up the multimedia journalist plan long ago.

I enjoyed zoning in on my strengths today; next time, I’ll be grabbing my camera and trying to figure out how to get that remote-controlled zoom to work.