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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
