JESSELL AT LARGE

WDBJ Tragedy Is Call For Safety Review

It's getting dicey out there for TV reporters and photographers especially when they are prepping or doing a live remote. You cannot fully protect them from pranksters, thieves or killers. But you can take precautions like curtailing sending reporters out alone. The one-man band may no longer be a "smart idea," says NewsLab's Deborah Potter.

Every month, we post a reel of TV news bloopers from YouTube. But the clips are not all bloopers per se. Often, amid the verbal fumbles, reporter tumbles and other on-air mishaps, are an example of two of what’s called video bombing — people running into live shots to make faces or lewd gestures or to shout obscenities or inanities.

From what I’ve seen, these intrusions into live shots are harmless, more annoyances of the modern age. I’ll confess to thinking some funny.

But in the wake of the shootings in Virginia on Wednesday in which reporter Alison Parker and videographer Adam Ward of WDBJ Roanoke were killed on a routine assignment, I’m thinking differently about the video bombing.

Now, as I look at the videos, I think of just how vulnerable reporters and videographers are when they are in the field. And I just don’t mean when they in a dangerous situation like the edge of a riot or raucous protest demonstration. I mean whenever they are in the field.

The vulnerability spikes in live situations. When reporters are focused on presenting their stories, they can’t also be fully aware of what’s happening around them. And even if they suspect trouble, they are not in a position to do anything about it if they are on the air or just about to go on the air. The impulse, I think, would be to go on and hope to get through it before the trouble materializes.

I spoke to Deborah Potter of NewsLab and Mike Cavender of RTDNA and both say the harassment of reporters is getting worse, particularly during live shots. “It’s been escalating for years,” says Potter. “It used to be that they would stand behind you and jump up and down. Now they come right up to you and yell in your ear and yell at the camera. It’s gotten to a point where it can be a risky thing being out there going live.”

BRAND CONNECTIONS

Potter and Cavender blame YouTube and social media. Clearly, it’s a big part of the problem. Before their advent, your reward for making an ass of yourself in a live shot was perhaps a friend seeing you for a moment on the evening news.

Now, you can record and circulate your dubious achievement to all your friends and be assured that it will live forever in cyberspace, perhaps on the monthly blooper reel.

“A sense of ‘hate the media’ is also an issue that we are dealing with here and it seems to give people permission to behave in completely uncouth ways,” Potter says.

Uncouth behavior is not all broadcasters have to worry about these days. Lately, it’s gone from pranks to serious crime. In San Francisco, just last month, three men robbed two news crews at gun point during a live broadcast, pistol whipping a photographer from NBC’s KNTV in the process.

Every newsroom today should be thinking about what it can or should be doing to keep its reporters and photographers safe when they are in the field, especially during live shoots.

Potter believes stations should reconsider whether “sending one person out to go live is a smart idea.” I would agree.

Bob Papper, who surveys local TV newsroom annually for the RTDNA, says the use of one-man bands (OMBs) is on the rise, increasing two or three percentage points per year for the past several years. In his latest report, more than 50% of newsrooms reports they “mostly use” OMBs, and more than 90% use them at least occasionally. The smaller the market, the greater the prevalence.

A second person is no guarantee of absolute safety. That was one of the many hard lessons of Wednesday’s tragedy.

But a second person would undoubtedly improve safety. Two heads are better than one at anticipating trouble and figuring out how to avoid it. Even when the camera is rolling, the second person can help. “If it’s a lock-down live shot the photographer can look around and check his back, while the reporter has to be focused on the lens,” says Potter.

We’ve reported on the proliferation of OMBs over the years and I see that they cut two ways. On the one hand, they allow stations, particularly small-market stations with tight budgets, to put more reporters on the street. On the other, the economy comes at a cost. The reporter isn’t reporting if she is spending time safe-guarding and setting up her gear. And she isn’t concentrating on the video if she is chasing the five Ws.

In my mind, the safety issue tips the balance against the expanding use of OMBs.

Potter also believes stations should scale back on “live for the sake of live” to mitigate risk.

“So many live shots are done simply for production value, not because something it happening,” she says. “They’re done because you’re a producer and you’ve  been told to have so many live hits in your newscast. It’s not really about the value of what is happening at that moment a lot of a time…. I think viewers actually see through that.”

I have to part ways with Potter on this point. Yes, the live reports I see here in the New York market are sometime gratuitous. But on the whole, they breathe life into newscasts. They tell this viewer that the station cares enough about your community to be on the scene of the house fire, even if it was extinguished hours ago. Whenever a station is broadcasting live,  it is using the full power of the medium.

Cutting back on live news is the wrong takeaway from Virginia, says RTDNA Cavender. “You can’t lock your employees inside the building all day. You’ve got to go out and gather the news whether it’s at a shopping center or an interview with a person from the Chamber of Commerce. You’ve got to go where the news is.”

There are more lessons to be learned and discussions to be had about what happened in Virginia. I’ve been amazed at how many issues beyond safety have already been addressed by the coverage (we have posted three dozen stories over three days) — the ethics and propriety of the media’s use of the killer’s graphic first-person video, workplace violence, the difficulties of covering your own story as WDBJ did,  the role of social media in the crime, gun control, even the video autoplay function of Facebook and Twitter.

All should be considered further in due course.

But for now I would simply like to extend my condolences and those of the rest the TVNewsCheck staff to the families and friends of two fine young broadcasters, Alison Parker and Adam Ward.

P.S. Today, we posted the bloopers for August. It contains no serious video bombing.

Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be contacted at 973-701-1067 or [email protected]. You can read earlier columns here.


Comments (26)

Leave a Reply

Scott Schirmer says:

August 28, 2015 at 3:34 pm

Frankly, I’ve always hated that you post those. They make a mockery of our business and encourage people to do more and more inane crud in live shots. I hope you’ll stop.

    Linda Stewart says:

    August 28, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    So noted. We’ll consider it.

    robert russo says:

    August 28, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    Thanks Mr. Jessell. I appreciate it.

alicia farmer says:

August 28, 2015 at 3:39 pm

Stations have the influence and power to deal with the source of the problem – NRA legislators. The vast majority of folks want tougher gun laws. Stations need to demand action.

    Casey Bridgers says:

    August 28, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    “The vast majority of folks want tougher gun laws.”

    Where is your evidence of this?

    alicia farmer says:

    August 29, 2015 at 8:22 am

    Every major national poll in the past three years clearly shows the majority of Americans want tougher gun laws. Please check it out. The Internet is your friend.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    August 31, 2015 at 5:59 am

    Thats comical. Here is Gallup over 25 years back….and your statement is clearly not true. in fact, Wanting Less Control is at it’s Highest Point Ever. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Ellen Samrock says:

August 28, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Finally, Harry gets it. Video bombing is not funny and I’ve said that many times here. It’s a source of added stress and worry for the crews. I’ve been there. The idea of the locked down live shot is only a marginally better approach. Keep in mind, the camera person is not just monitoring video, he/she is monitoring audio, listening to the director through their IFB, making sure the truck is sending the shot back to the station and any number of details large and small. Now they have to monitor that no sniper is lurking in the shadows? It’s a lot to ask–too much in my opinion. So what’s next? Arming the crews with guns? I still feel that a security person should accompany news crews, particularly for live shots. But at a base minimum, a tripod should be required so that the photographer can monitor the surroundings. No more handheld. And, yes, I am heart-sick over the loss of these journalists. They were obviously great at their jobs and wonderful people. If any good can come from this tragedy its that news departments will change the composition of the crews to add security, no more OMBs, or a change in policy of how crews operate in gathering the news. I would also like to see a Parker/Ward bill, making video bombing and harassment of news crews a federal crime.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    August 28, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    Interesting. So you are against Freedom of Speech. So noted.

    Ellen Samrock says:

    August 28, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    So you approve of harassing journalists. So noted.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    August 29, 2015 at 4:46 am

    No True Journalist will ever endorse restrictions on Freedom of Speech. Of course, as a LPTV operator, you do not do remote shots, so your restrictions on Free Speech is comical.

    Ellen Samrock says:

    August 29, 2015 at 10:58 am

    Our station does live remotes of city council meetings and election debates. So your presumptuousness and ignorance of our operation is also noted.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    August 31, 2015 at 5:57 am

    Doubtful. Regardless, no true Journalist wants to even think about a slippery slope of limiting Freedom of Speech.

    Ellen Samrock says:

    August 31, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    So are you calling me a liar? You know folks, there is an excellent article in the latest Radio World by the editor, Paul McLane, on what are and are not considered acceptable comments by readers of their magazine and website. By their criteria, Insider, who is nothing more than a common troll, has crossed the line into unacceptability many times. I suggest that everyone, including the people who run this site, read it. The information might help establish some level of civility and acceptable discourse on this site, which it has been lacking for a long, long time.

    Cameron Miller says:

    August 31, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Leave Roger Thornhill alone!

Angie McClimon says:

August 28, 2015 at 4:50 pm

We may have to go back to the old-fashioned news method and ditch the Al Primo Eyewitness News format of overused live shots for nearly everything.

    Andrea Rader says:

    August 28, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    I agree. Live shots, apart from the very real risks to news crew’s lives, are a waste of station resources that could be better spent on enterprise reporting.

Casey Bridgers says:

August 28, 2015 at 6:04 pm

There is absolutely no correlation between someone who hoots and yells behind a reporter during a live shot and the Roanoake shooter. None. He wasn’t a random person on a live shot, scene. He was a cold, calculated killer who spent months planning the murders in exacting detail.

The shooting was an isolated incident in a nation with 250 TV markets and 375 million people. It was an anomaly.

If live shots were not safe no one would be doing them. There are thousands of live shots every day and no one gets hurt. Reacting emotionally by thinking you could of prevented what happened with a revised corporate safety policy is misguided.

Making judgements off YouTube videos is not an intelligent way to look at what happened last week.

What TV news managers should do (they won’t) is not have crews set up in the middle of an angry mob (Furgeson) or an active crime scene and start taking up large amounts of space and expect that no one will touch them. But we all know the best TV is in usually the danger zone.

Many things are done in TV for production value. TV is a form of theater. It’s amazing that some people still hang on this journalism thing. Journalism doesn’t get you ratings. Interesting TV does gets ratings.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    August 28, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    Overall Correct. Drones may allow camera shots from the danger spots you noted, however, real News Journalist will still want to go in and get the story – and will continue to do so.

    Keith ONeal says:

    August 28, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    Kenni, there are 210 TV Markets, not 250.

    Joel Ordesky says:

    August 30, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    I find it amusing that in some markets, reporters are issued wading boots so that they can walk into waist high water and report on what flood water is like.

Michelle Underwood says:

August 31, 2015 at 10:13 am

One whack job does something and now we all need to change our behavior. The have been traffic chopper crashes; are we calling for elimination of news choppers? Live trucks have been involved in fatal accidents; time to eliminate live trucks? Lets get down to the real issue; if employers were freely able to give the truth when someone calls to check a job reference the shooter would have never been hired and two journalists would still be alive.

Tim Darnell says:

August 31, 2015 at 12:02 pm

This killing was not about TV reporting. This was workplace violence that could have happened in any business. Sadly, it is not the first workplace killing and it will not be the last. I think it is a mistake to reevaluate the needs and safety for OMBs. The SF attack was different. They were targeted because they were journalists. The Roanoke team was not. Across all industries there will be ex-employees that think themselves wronged. They will sue for every perceived wrong and, if that is not satisfying, a small few will consider something more extreme. A takeaway from Roanoke is to better spot and address anger issues promptly, working with professionals to do so.

roselyn mircio says:

September 1, 2015 at 11:19 am

The shooter obviously had past problems and I wonder if people just overlooked it? Did this really come as a surprise to everybody?

Sean Smith says:

September 1, 2015 at 12:05 pm

People, come on.. we’re debating apples and oranges when we’re actually baking a blueberry pie.
You are not going to do away with live shots, one-man bands, or people who photobomb live shots and TV stations are not going to hire security to follow live shots around.. ain’t gonna happen.
You control the things that you CAN control.. That is, a roving eye whenever possible (and face it… it won’t be possible a lot)….. producers who leave camera people alone in their ear, long enough to let them assess their surroundings…. and, reporters and photogs who cover for each other (be the eyes and ears for each other, if the other is busy).
We are not going to ever prevent this from happening again, either by a photobomber or a cold, calculated killer. We do need to change our approach to live shots and reporter/photographers out in the field.