As promised way back on February 1st's entry, an update to the elusive job search for that TV job I know I should be at.
Positions I had bookmarked at Monster.com were already filled, so I turned to current listings. They have one for a news station in Cedar Rapids, IA, that doesn't even require previous experience. Just think what my experience could generate for me from an initial low position; previous experience could prove invaluable! (There's also a job that I saved doing set-up and production in Valley Forge, PA.)
I am also trying to network with others like me through MySpace. I added one of the Fox Sports Net producers as a friend, and finally found long-time associate Alan on MySpace. He's about my best bet right now in trying to master the digital technology that has changed the field since I was last active. I would only hope he'd know that I'm serious on this one.
You can't beat a group of like-minded individuals who want to help the others succeed. That's just part of what my many jobs in the field were like, and one of the main reasons it was so enjoyable to do.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Objectivity or equal time
Nice quote in today's paper attributable to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, about why he doesn't do interviews:
"In the past, the media often have their own script... (They) have been universally untrustworthy because they have their own notions..."
I actually say "nice" in an ironic, somewhat sarcastic tone, because we all know how difficult & controversial the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings went nearly 15 years ago. Sometimes, the subject will bring the controversies, issues & questions on his/herself.
But it is still the goal of the news media to promote unbiased stories (though "sweeps week" in TV broadcast media blemishes that idea) wherever possible. This is the ultimate goal of a TV interviewer who decides not to go the Jerry Springer route. People may witness emotions in interviews, but they tune in mostly to get factual information about issues.
I actually found it hard to watch a few local public affairs shows two years ago during election season, where the mayoral candidate of my old hometown was interviewed by a show host who had done business with her before. He was promoting a forum on a hotly-contested mayoral race. Were they younger, I'm sure they would have high-fived each other through the interview.
What kept him from getting the Clarence Thomas stigma is that he granted equal time to the remaining candidates; each received their own half-hour forum. The host could afford to be "biased" for one half-hour; provided he return the favor for the other candidates.
Half my later years in TV production were on interview shows like this one. So, for interviewers who want to give the medium a better name than it has now (print as well as electronic journalism), show objectivity, even if you've done your field research and may find some issues.
If not, then be sure your program is not a "one-time special", and be prepared to host differing points of view. My best friend's mother years ago taught me there were two sides to every story, and the complete person heard both sides.
If you want to avoid Supreme Court intervention (lol), you'll take the objective route.
"In the past, the media often have their own script... (They) have been universally untrustworthy because they have their own notions..."
I actually say "nice" in an ironic, somewhat sarcastic tone, because we all know how difficult & controversial the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings went nearly 15 years ago. Sometimes, the subject will bring the controversies, issues & questions on his/herself.
But it is still the goal of the news media to promote unbiased stories (though "sweeps week" in TV broadcast media blemishes that idea) wherever possible. This is the ultimate goal of a TV interviewer who decides not to go the Jerry Springer route. People may witness emotions in interviews, but they tune in mostly to get factual information about issues.
I actually found it hard to watch a few local public affairs shows two years ago during election season, where the mayoral candidate of my old hometown was interviewed by a show host who had done business with her before. He was promoting a forum on a hotly-contested mayoral race. Were they younger, I'm sure they would have high-fived each other through the interview.
What kept him from getting the Clarence Thomas stigma is that he granted equal time to the remaining candidates; each received their own half-hour forum. The host could afford to be "biased" for one half-hour; provided he return the favor for the other candidates.
Half my later years in TV production were on interview shows like this one. So, for interviewers who want to give the medium a better name than it has now (print as well as electronic journalism), show objectivity, even if you've done your field research and may find some issues.
If not, then be sure your program is not a "one-time special", and be prepared to host differing points of view. My best friend's mother years ago taught me there were two sides to every story, and the complete person heard both sides.
If you want to avoid Supreme Court intervention (lol), you'll take the objective route.
Friday, March 2, 2007
The fifth grader got me
Game shows, as you've probably guessed by now, are one of my favorite genre of TV programs. Yet in today's American Idol-filled world, the quality of those shows plays toward the dramatic element only. Lost in the steep production values are the value of the quiz itself. I tend to look for substance over flash.
Something rose above the horizon last night that I actually enjoyed: Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?
I enjoyed this show right from the start. It was screamingly funny to me to see grown-ups struggle to answer questions that would be posed from first to fifth-graders, who make up part of the "panel". You even see graphics superimposed underneath a nervous adult contestant, struggling with a third-grade topic, declaring "She had a 3.87 high school GPA!" Good natured jabs, for sure.
What a glorious look at role reversal: the grown-ups depending on the kids for the answers. When proven correct, they high-five the kids as if they were high-fiving people their own age.
And these kids were marvelous. Total naturals, very enthusiastic, rooting for the adults, knowledgable of their subjects... and completely unnervous in front of the cameras. Grown-ups appearing on game shows will often tell the host they're nervous. You don't see any of these kids intimidated by the audience, the lights and the cameras; they go on their merry old way as if they were with their friends on the playground. Amazing that they handle the pressures better than our own peers do!
Plus, I'll admit I'm a Johnny-Come-Lately to warming to Jeff Foxworthy, who until yesterday I branded a Martin Mull-lookalike who knew nothing but the "redneck style". He has untapped skills as a game show host, and he looked great in the role; keeping the contestants on edge without overdoing it, as Regis & Meredith did with Millionaire.
The fifth grader did get me on one: I don't know my third grade measurements. It's fifteen teaspoons to five tablespoons - not ten!
No wonder none of my baking recipes ever turned out.
Something rose above the horizon last night that I actually enjoyed: Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?
I enjoyed this show right from the start. It was screamingly funny to me to see grown-ups struggle to answer questions that would be posed from first to fifth-graders, who make up part of the "panel". You even see graphics superimposed underneath a nervous adult contestant, struggling with a third-grade topic, declaring "She had a 3.87 high school GPA!" Good natured jabs, for sure.
What a glorious look at role reversal: the grown-ups depending on the kids for the answers. When proven correct, they high-five the kids as if they were high-fiving people their own age.
And these kids were marvelous. Total naturals, very enthusiastic, rooting for the adults, knowledgable of their subjects... and completely unnervous in front of the cameras. Grown-ups appearing on game shows will often tell the host they're nervous. You don't see any of these kids intimidated by the audience, the lights and the cameras; they go on their merry old way as if they were with their friends on the playground. Amazing that they handle the pressures better than our own peers do!
Plus, I'll admit I'm a Johnny-Come-Lately to warming to Jeff Foxworthy, who until yesterday I branded a Martin Mull-lookalike who knew nothing but the "redneck style". He has untapped skills as a game show host, and he looked great in the role; keeping the contestants on edge without overdoing it, as Regis & Meredith did with Millionaire.
The fifth grader did get me on one: I don't know my third grade measurements. It's fifteen teaspoons to five tablespoons - not ten!
No wonder none of my baking recipes ever turned out.
Was I nervous?
Citing what I just wrote above, the question begs to be asked: Was I ever nervous in front of a camera?
Realisitically, no from the beginning. Technically, no after the first time (reading cue cards killed me at first). This may seem to be an unfair judgement, because I never had to perform before an audience.
Still, I back up my stance: though there was no audience, I knew that the cameras were rolling and your show was going live on the air. How did I manage to go through as if I were born to be in front of a camera?
Simple: I blocked out the camera. It helped that the lights were shining right in my face to where I was literally blinded from seeing the camera. I was able to see my script on the board in front of me, and not much else.
But I only told myself the camera wasn't on me. My mind was used to that thought. The camera is not "on" 95% of the time as I keep going into the studio to make technical adjustments. I just assumed my tapings were further technical adjustments that would be corrected so I would be "ready for the live shot." And by the time my "adjustments" were finished, so in essence was the live shoot! There was nothing for me to worry about.
Psychological ploys can get you through anything, including facing a camera. The body is easily fooled into thinking of other conditions if you can convince yourself those false conditions are true. Whether the kids on the game show thought that is not my knowledge.
But, like me, they blocked out all nervousness -- and shone like stars. They were fantastic.
Realisitically, no from the beginning. Technically, no after the first time (reading cue cards killed me at first). This may seem to be an unfair judgement, because I never had to perform before an audience.
Still, I back up my stance: though there was no audience, I knew that the cameras were rolling and your show was going live on the air. How did I manage to go through as if I were born to be in front of a camera?
Simple: I blocked out the camera. It helped that the lights were shining right in my face to where I was literally blinded from seeing the camera. I was able to see my script on the board in front of me, and not much else.
But I only told myself the camera wasn't on me. My mind was used to that thought. The camera is not "on" 95% of the time as I keep going into the studio to make technical adjustments. I just assumed my tapings were further technical adjustments that would be corrected so I would be "ready for the live shot." And by the time my "adjustments" were finished, so in essence was the live shoot! There was nothing for me to worry about.
Psychological ploys can get you through anything, including facing a camera. The body is easily fooled into thinking of other conditions if you can convince yourself those false conditions are true. Whether the kids on the game show thought that is not my knowledge.
But, like me, they blocked out all nervousness -- and shone like stars. They were fantastic.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Article on ex-hometown operations
The drama is not close to ending for that Michigan House Bill that would eliminate franchise fees going to cities & townships for cable television operations, thereby sorely limiting a community's ability for its residence to produce their own local programming, sports spots, and so forth.
Though this article doesn't specifically focus on the pending bill, it does deal with the gradual rises in cable TV rates, and does imply that the department responsible for telecasting local events is operating at a loss. A loss of community programming ability is a loss of ability to express views and be known on a local basis. As has been said before, people actually do like to see themselves on TV, even if not on a grandstanding scale.
The last quote of the article just kills me, though: "On a sunny day you could go down to the river, watch the boats and take your laptop." Wyandotte: a city known for great parks and an excellent waterfront... and you want to take a laptop despite the surroundings? Great chuckle for the day.
Though this article doesn't specifically focus on the pending bill, it does deal with the gradual rises in cable TV rates, and does imply that the department responsible for telecasting local events is operating at a loss. A loss of community programming ability is a loss of ability to express views and be known on a local basis. As has been said before, people actually do like to see themselves on TV, even if not on a grandstanding scale.
The last quote of the article just kills me, though: "On a sunny day you could go down to the river, watch the boats and take your laptop." Wyandotte: a city known for great parks and an excellent waterfront... and you want to take a laptop despite the surroundings? Great chuckle for the day.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Script props can be bloopers
Especially while going through sheer boredom the past week or so, I long for some of those old cable access programs I produced & hosted in from a decade ago, so I can laugh at what I was like back then.
I always made sure to compose a tape of bloopers/mistakes, which always turn out to be funnier than the finished product. Thinking back on the Four-Pro Forum sports show I used to host, it came to mind that 95% of those miscues came from reading a script, fastened together as a prop either on the table in front of me, or on an easel underneath the camera lens.
Of the four on-screen hosts, I was the only one that required a written script; even though the bulk of the show was impromptu sports discussion. Perhaps I didn't do my research until the last minute, as many shows saw me out in the hallway thumbing through sports magazines and writing down highlights.
I knew that once we got to my segment of the show, the conversation would flow normally. But when we would preview our subject material at the talk of the show, it did seem staged, especially my portion. And yet, this is where the bulk of the bloopers came from: in an urge for perfection in pronounciation, I would stumble over a word, and need to re-take the shot. I'm sure I exhausted my director's patience on more than one occassion.
One show, which was set in a classroom because the college studio wasn't available that day, was the most obvious. It took sixteen takes to get the forty-five second opening montage on film. I couldn't even bear to look at myself, as I had the worst case of the "giggles" ever (a prelude to bronchitis I would get two days later). I had to stick to the script because I thought, without printed words to guide me, I would be clueless and look froze on camera.
Turns out that speaking from the heart, and not from a prop, would have gotten us out of the classroom a bit quicker than it ended up being.
This is proof positive you need to do your research if you want a presentable program. Any script you follow should be committed to memory before the cameras roll. You should be able to talk freely about the subject matter without having to worry about sentence structure. I still can't say why it didn't jell with me, since there are many TV shows and movies I've seen over & over to where I have all the script lines memorized, with unlimited retainment.
Script props, as a result, can contain a block of their own, in spite of their obvious purpose to help the reader through his or her task. Don't rely on this art exculsively, especially if you need to compile a second full tape of blooper openings. Though looking at them was funny in itself, it also showed that a better system had to be in place for the show to look reputable.
Commit your scripts to memory, and look like you're the self-proclaimed expert on your subject matter before going "live". For if not, your act will look anything BUT "live".
I always made sure to compose a tape of bloopers/mistakes, which always turn out to be funnier than the finished product. Thinking back on the Four-Pro Forum sports show I used to host, it came to mind that 95% of those miscues came from reading a script, fastened together as a prop either on the table in front of me, or on an easel underneath the camera lens.
Of the four on-screen hosts, I was the only one that required a written script; even though the bulk of the show was impromptu sports discussion. Perhaps I didn't do my research until the last minute, as many shows saw me out in the hallway thumbing through sports magazines and writing down highlights.
I knew that once we got to my segment of the show, the conversation would flow normally. But when we would preview our subject material at the talk of the show, it did seem staged, especially my portion. And yet, this is where the bulk of the bloopers came from: in an urge for perfection in pronounciation, I would stumble over a word, and need to re-take the shot. I'm sure I exhausted my director's patience on more than one occassion.
One show, which was set in a classroom because the college studio wasn't available that day, was the most obvious. It took sixteen takes to get the forty-five second opening montage on film. I couldn't even bear to look at myself, as I had the worst case of the "giggles" ever (a prelude to bronchitis I would get two days later). I had to stick to the script because I thought, without printed words to guide me, I would be clueless and look froze on camera.
Turns out that speaking from the heart, and not from a prop, would have gotten us out of the classroom a bit quicker than it ended up being.
This is proof positive you need to do your research if you want a presentable program. Any script you follow should be committed to memory before the cameras roll. You should be able to talk freely about the subject matter without having to worry about sentence structure. I still can't say why it didn't jell with me, since there are many TV shows and movies I've seen over & over to where I have all the script lines memorized, with unlimited retainment.
Script props, as a result, can contain a block of their own, in spite of their obvious purpose to help the reader through his or her task. Don't rely on this art exculsively, especially if you need to compile a second full tape of blooper openings. Though looking at them was funny in itself, it also showed that a better system had to be in place for the show to look reputable.
Commit your scripts to memory, and look like you're the self-proclaimed expert on your subject matter before going "live". For if not, your act will look anything BUT "live".
Monday, February 19, 2007
Colorization has improved
Today I watched two colorized clips of The Three Stooges on SpikeTV, and I came away very impressed.
Old movie series and older television series are re-issued every so often with the claim "remastered". But with this, as well as last week's entry about the 1960s Star Trek getting dazzling (for it) special effects, I think those in charge of remastering have finally mastered the art - no pun intended.
I had to look twice before I could verify it was an actual Stooges flick (and with Curly & Shemp, no less). I remember about twelve years ago, when Alan Thicke hosted a Stooges retrospective, complete with the first-ever colorized feature film from them. The tint of the overall video was blue, and it looked very grainy. You could tell it was a color-up job.
Yesterday's airing on Spike made it look as if the episode was originally produced in color in the 1930s. There were no defining color tints; everything was in balance. Even better, the sound was remastered, meaning you didn't hear any of that audio garbage the old films of the 30s and 40s are known for.
This was a nice treat, although I may be the first to say that I won't lose my nostalgic feeling over the old quality of those films. Sometimes, seeing them in black & white, with audio noise and bad splicing, only add to the flavor of those films.
I would never hope to see these colorized, restored versions become the rule completely. They are nice, they show how advanced the art of restoration has become, and it can be used as a selling point to get the attention of new generations, who have seen nothing but color and heard nothing but Dolby sound.
But for those of us who remember a different era; the one classically defined as Hollywood's "Golden Age", a return to the old quality doesn't hurt our viewing pleasure; in fact, it enhances it.
Old movie series and older television series are re-issued every so often with the claim "remastered". But with this, as well as last week's entry about the 1960s Star Trek getting dazzling (for it) special effects, I think those in charge of remastering have finally mastered the art - no pun intended.
I had to look twice before I could verify it was an actual Stooges flick (and with Curly & Shemp, no less). I remember about twelve years ago, when Alan Thicke hosted a Stooges retrospective, complete with the first-ever colorized feature film from them. The tint of the overall video was blue, and it looked very grainy. You could tell it was a color-up job.
Yesterday's airing on Spike made it look as if the episode was originally produced in color in the 1930s. There were no defining color tints; everything was in balance. Even better, the sound was remastered, meaning you didn't hear any of that audio garbage the old films of the 30s and 40s are known for.
This was a nice treat, although I may be the first to say that I won't lose my nostalgic feeling over the old quality of those films. Sometimes, seeing them in black & white, with audio noise and bad splicing, only add to the flavor of those films.
I would never hope to see these colorized, restored versions become the rule completely. They are nice, they show how advanced the art of restoration has become, and it can be used as a selling point to get the attention of new generations, who have seen nothing but color and heard nothing but Dolby sound.
But for those of us who remember a different era; the one classically defined as Hollywood's "Golden Age", a return to the old quality doesn't hurt our viewing pleasure; in fact, it enhances it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
