Sunday, September 9, 2007

UK asks, are TV editing tricks misleading? This BBC video clip illustrates the contents of "the TV news tricks cupboard" -- cutaways to a nodding interviewer, staged walk-ins to establish a story scene, or splicing re-recorded questions into interview footage. The fine points of video editing are a sideshow to a larger debate over British viewers' loss of faith in television news; either way, it seems time for more "transparency" about how news products are produced. (For links to a similar discussion of audio editing tricks at America's NPR, and some related items, see this earlier blog post of mine.) At their most innocent, the TV tricks in question simply smooth the rough edges of a one-camera news interview, instead of awkwardly panning between the reporter and newsmaker, or backing off to keep both people in the camera frame. The Brits call the cut to a brief shot of an attentive reporter a "noddy." Remember the movie "Broadcast News," with a reporter going beyone the attentive nod -- to faking an emotional reaction to an interviewee? Rather than "noddy," I call that "looking (William) Hurt." Here's some of the virtual ink being spilt on the topic: Faking it (BBC Newsnight) [Video clip] Five News to ban staged shots (Media Guardian) (Five News) Noddys: Can TV do without them? (Guardian blog) Good-bye old noddies, hello trick-free TV (Times) Noddy's not dead (BBC Editors) Among the interesting points, an observation that even if the techniques discussed aren't unethical, they're still objectionable as hackneyed pre-digital leftovers from the days of analog reel-to-reel editing. Digital fades and other recent techniques can do the same job of making transitions, without requiring setups, re-staging or play-acting on the part of the reporter. For Britain's recent media controversies and broader issues of public trust, see this transcript of a (45-page!) speech by Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman on the state of British TV. He said, in part: "We need treat our viewers with respect, to be frank with them about how and why programmes were made, to be transparent. We need, in short, to rediscover a sense of purpose." SIDEBAR: Speaking of camera techniques... cue the fade-to-misty-memory tinted background for a flashback -- to a story I covered early in my newspaper reporting career. It was the first time a New York network TV crew came up to my little Connecticut city to cover a story I was working on. I had my notebook and maybe a pocket-size 35mm Leica. They had four or five guys and a couple of dollies of camera, lighting and audio equipment. (This was the seventies, when TV cameras didn't fit in your backpack, much less your pocket.) And they had a different attitude. The story was already a "staged" event, a press conference and demonstration by a self-described "maverick inventor." But the TV news crew surprised me by picking up the table that the inventor's device rested on and carrying it a few steps across his office. The goal may have been to get away from the natural light coming in a window; I forget. What stuck with me even more was the last line from the head TV guy at the end of the interview. He turned to his crew and said, "OK guys... Strike the set." My conclusion: I was "covering a story." They were too, but they were doing something extra called "making television," which had a lot to do with theater. It simply wasn't as natural an act as my scratching in a notebook. Now, with video cameras that do fit in your coat pocket, maybe its time for TV news to forget its old analog theater tricks... time to figure out what "natural" means amid the temptations of new digital trickery.   4:54:01 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2008 Bob Stepno. Last update: 7/19/08; 1:23:42 PM.