I Have an Idea…..

31 Comments

• 

  Cliff Etzel July 31, 2007

  Nino – I would have thought that my response was non- confrontational – yet you turned it into something otherwise – Michael is correct in his response to me – stick to lighting.

  My money is on the Solo VJ paradigm – and it’s already panning out better than I had expected.

• 

  efplighting July 31, 2007

  “Nino may deride 5Take, but of course it has already completed four seasons and hopefully has more ahead. Not too many cable series go to four seasons or more”.

  “Its very cost effective, and so long as the product looks good, the networks could care less”.

  The Samantha Brown series has been running successfully for over 8 years and I can assure you that each episode costs much less to produce than any of those 5 takes did.
  And I’m sure that they bring in much more money to the Travel Channel that the 5takes ever did or they would not show it only 3 times within the same 12 hours graveyard shift period and no re-broadcast. Face it man, if it does not get air time it’s a failure, that’s the harsh reality of television. The channels is now trying to rescue the concept and recuperate some of the money by using the show to sell the tuition on the TJ Academy. Have you seen how many times on the 5 takes show the flag came up on the screen promoting the TJ academy?

  You can talk or offend me all you want and tell me that I’m wrong all day long, but the proof is in the pudding, or, prove me wrong with an acceptable explanation not just calling me names like kids on a playground.

• 

  efplighting July 31, 2007

  Michael, one day you’ll have to find a good surgeon that specializes in removing feet from people’s mouths. You sure like to offend people wherever you have a chance.

  I also have won 7 Emmy for news features, including one for a story I did for one of the networks on 9-11. BTW, all done outdoor, no lights.

  In 1975 in the northeast I started a production company for advertising photography and film productions. We worked with film until mid 80s when we slowly started combining video. We also specialized in audio-visual presentation. I sold the company to my junior partners in 1993. In our peak times we employed as many as 75 people.

  One of our departments with a staff of six did nothing else but buying bulk television time for our advertising client. Their primary duties were to rate the programs and place the ads on optimum viewing times/cost. Trust me, I know a whole lot more about the business side of television that you do.

  And about those other shows that you take credit, like ER, you deleted my post once before so I will not try again.

  “And it is not just me. I have many friends in this business who also produce series for cable, and many of them work in the same exact way”.

  Okay, where?

• 

  rosenblumtv July 31, 2007

  Dear Cliff
  Nino should stick to lighting, which I am sure he does very well. When it comes to the world of selling programs or producing them, I am afraid he knows next to nothing.

  With increasing downward pressure on budgets today, what networks are looking for is a combination of good quality and low cost. The VJ paradigm, when done properly, delivers this very effectively.

  Nino may deride 5Take, but of course it has already completed four seasons and hopefully has more ahead. Not too many cable series go to four seasons or more. In fact, Discovery, (which is no slouch) had us down to their HQ to deliver a day long seminar to their staff and other production companies on the ‘5Takes’ VJ technique. We didn’t offer it, they asked for it. I can tell you they like it a lot.

  Of course, 5Takes was hardly the first series to be shot and produced in this way. I have been doing this since Trauma (an astonishing 10 year run, and still on the air), Paramedics (5 seasons), Maternity Ward, Code Blue, Labor and Delivery, Breaking News, Doctors Without Borders and many others as well. Last year we did Drew Carey’s Sporting Adventures for DCI in this way and about a dozen pilots, and there are more of these coming as well. So you see, it is not so much the ‘failure’ that Nino likes to tout.

  And it is not just me. I have many friends in this business who also produce series for cable, and many of them work in the same exact way. They just don’t talk about it so much. But why wouldn’t they? Its very cost effective, and so long as the product looks good, the networks could care less.

• 

  efplighting July 31, 2007

  Cliff wrote:
  “I find it quite interesting that the vocal detractors of the Solo VJ paradigm are the ones who are entrenched in the old way of doing things”.

  Cliff, define the new and old methods.

  “The clients I market to actually LIKE the concept of Jack Of All Trades, Master of them all”

  Cliff, one of these days you’ll have to stop saying this to your clients because it makes you look like someone who has no clue on how productions work.

  There are two ways that productions are made. The most expensive productions are when a client hires a producer to take care of the whole thing. The producer is basically a contractor, the same way as you would hire a contractor to build a house. He will hire subcontractors to carry out each phase of the production. This is unquestionably the most expensive method of productions and usually when a producer is involved it means that there’s a higher budget and the client expect a better product. The producer is an orchestra director, he will hire the subcontractors based on the budget or on particular skills; the best subcontractors if a higher budget or the worst if a lower budget; but not always. A smart producer knows that an experienced veteran will get twice as much work done in the same period of time as an inexperienced would and the work will be twice as good. So, smart producers with small budget will hire the best DP. Producers also know that most cameramen/DP are also good writers and good editors but it’s too expensive to hire them to do these chores when a writer and an editor will charge half of what the DP charges.

  Now why on earth would a client go thru a producer when he knows that it will cost more money? Even the largest corporations have all kinds of budgets allocated for productions. Some are really healthy and some are real sick budgets. The client doesn’t have the time to shop around; instead he presents the budget to the producer and the producer will customize the production according to what the customer wants to spend.

  The second method of production is when the job is done by freelance/DP like myself or any of the other thousands freelancers, and this is the way that most productions are done today. When we take a full job, meaning from concept to the finished product, we don’t hire writers or editors. I can write and edit as well as anybody can and I don’t mind staying up to two in the morning to finish a script or do an edit if I get to keep the money instead of paying somebody. All the client care is that you deliver a finished product that lives up to the expectation and within budget. He doesn’t give a damn how it was done or who or how many people worked on the project as long as it gets done.

  Michael just wrote this only few weeks ago:
  “To create a television ‘product’ you now have to have an idea, hire a cameraman, a soundman, director, lighting tech, editor, edit suite, rent gear… on and on”

  This is pure misleading BS; these types of productions styles went out 20 years ago. Only corporate high budget production will hire these many people. A typical TV crew today consists of a cameraman/DP and a soundtech and if needed a producer. Lately the soundthech is hired only if absolutely necessary and the producer is sent there basically to pave the way and to the dirty work for the cameraman so he can do his job more efficiently. You rent equipment only if the requested format is different from what the cameraman has. Directors? Editing suites? Lighting directors? You and Michael have been reading too many history books, your guys need to get back in the real world and see how things really work out there today.

  Take a close look at the “VJ Paradigm”, try to look for any success, you’ll discover that it has been a complete and total failure. The main difference between conventional productions done by individual freelancers and what VJs styles is the quality of the finished products. Clients do not buy ideology or revolutionary styles, they buy and expect what they recognize as quality, not what somebody else’s interpretation of quality is. You can not force an inferior product to the public while telling them that it is good stuff; soon or later, once the novelty is over they’ll recognize it as nothing more of what it really is, an inferior product produced by untrained and unskilled people done with substandard and cheap equipment, like the 5 Takes shows. Granted, there have been some good work done VJ style, but those jobs were done by people who had skills and educations way higher than the average VJs has.

• 

  Cliff Etzel July 31, 2007

  I don’t understand why this was a competition Nino. Neither is right or wrong – you each espouse a specific style of video production. Just because we don’t agree with you, doesn’t make our position any less valid.

  The work you produce is a certain style and is shot that way because your client requires that. If a client such as Travel Channel, or any other client sees value in the style of shooting/editing that Michael, myself and others advocate, why is it any less professional???

  I find it quite interesting that the vocal detractors of the Solo VJ paradigm are the ones who are entrenched in the old way of doing things. It reminds me of all the old timers I use to work with in photojournalism who swore up and down that they would never shoot digital cameras – that somehow the technology took all the skill away.

  Well, we saw what that got them – they either adapted or they were out of a job. NOw, many of those same people are scrambling to try and catch up – I read it all the time in various newslists and discussion forums.

  Sounds to me as if those who rail against the Solo VJ paradigm are repeating the same thing all over again.

  The clients I market to actually LIKE the concept of Jack Of All Trades, Master of them all – one company has retained me for ALL of their video work (minimum of three well paying video projects). I receive a rough draft outline/script – I’m responsible for refining the script, shooting, editing, doing the full audio narration, scoring music and delivering both to their website and DVD for trade show display. This has also led to at least another client VERY interested in this concept as well. I don’t get bored doing the same thing over and over and I get to experience creativity in several areas – thus keeping me fresh and motivated to continue – from what I have read, those stuck doing the same thing over and over hit burn out.

  At the end of the day, the client is the one that has to be satisfied with the end result – they are the ones signing the checks.

• 

  Dave July 30, 2007

  Michael,

  I’m interested in being involved with what you’re doing, or at least finding out more about it. I’m currently a university tutor in web production, and working in a newspaper’s online newsroom that is trying to do more with video journalism.

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  Forget it Michael, you win.

  Comparing literary writers to idiots with cameras is a good indication that this conversation has left the intelligent level and gone beyond any logic.

  Good luck to you an your investors, only time will tell.

• 

  rosenblumtv July 27, 2007

  Nino
  The reason people invest in these things (I have already closed on a substantial amount for this) and the reason people will find value in it, (and the reason these will make money) is all in the way that the architecture of the web is fundamentally different from broadcasting.

  In the broadcasting world we have all lived in, producing was expensive, as was broadcasting.. and there was limited shelf space for content.

  In webworld, the shelf space is virtually free and limitless. So you can carry everything there is with almost no cost. The ‘long tail’ kicks in because even if only a few people are interested in one item, you still have it for them.

  This is completely contrary to broadcasting where we have to be so very careful in deciding what to air.

  The second basic change is on the cost of production. We are used to big budgets to produce content – but on the web the productdion of content (like this) costs little but time.

  So there is an enormous opportunity for a very wide range of opinions and contributors and a way for them to meet up. you don’t need an audience of millions – you need a lot of audiences of only a few at a time. The architecture of the web is built just for this.

  Think of it as a constantly growing library of opinion and information. You might look at a library and be overwhelmed by the number of books – “I could never read all those, even in a lifetime” you might say. “Where are the economics of a library”. But you personally might read only afew. Someone else will read a few, and on and on…

  If you have not yet read The Long Tail, I would recommend it to you. It may change the way you think about the web and the economics behind it.

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  Maybe if we keep going at this one day we’ll understand what we are both trying to say.

  I’m not disputing the validity and the purpose of such CJ sites, I’m challenging the business sense of anyone investing in such site. It will be a money loser because without public support the site is doomed, and there’s no reason on earth of why intelligent people would waste their time to look at bunch of opinionated idiots with cameras. Once again you have failed to keep the public into consideration.

  Granted there will be a few good postings now and then but those will be lost in the mass of garbage that these sites always originate. Or maybe you are planning to you have somebody checking the accuracy and validity of each entry or screening those who will post videos. If this is going to be a political platform fine, let them go at each other, but what you are saying is the equivalent of the second amendment, the right of everyone to bear arms. Sure you have the right but only a few people are qualified to carry or using a weapon, the other just keep shooting and killing each other. So it goes for news, only very few people are qualified to do so the mass area bunch of wannabe with a camera no brain and nothing better to do looking for the thrill of seeing their video on the web. Your own model of shoot-shoot and see what you got later is the very fault of this system. How many people do you think that they’ll conduct the proper research and investigation before publishing a video piece on your VJ site.

  For the twentieth time my question to you that you haven’t answered yet is: “why should the public log into these sites” what’s their motivation knowing well that what they read could just be someone fantasy. This is nothing more than youtube, you might log in once or twice just for fun but that’s it. This is why Backfence.com has failed.

• 

  rosenblumtv July 27, 2007

  No
  My goal is to open the process of news to anyone – with a video camera or without.. and make it into a public forum instead of a pronouncement from an anchor or reporter.

  Let me give you an example:

  Bob Woodruff, nice man that he is, goes to Iraq to report about Iraq.

  The problem is that Bob Woodruff really knows next to nothing about Iraq. He does not speak Arabic. He flies into the country for a few days. he does not know the history, the culture… nothing.

  He can deliver a few stories that are both easy to get and predictable, but of really little value.

  Now, there are people who really know something about Iraq. Who have studied it. Who speak the language fluently. Who understand what is going on. They should be participating in the news.
  All the time.

  Suppose NBC News, for some reason, decided to do a report on ‘lighting for videography’ – go figure.. and they had Matt Lauer report the story.

  You would sit at home and say ‘I know this stuff better than they do’. And I am sure you do.

  You should be able to participate- to improve the quality of the information we take as news.

  Well, there are people in this world who know Iraq as well as you know lighting. But you don’t see them on the news.

  Which is a loss.

  So this is what I want to do.

  Get it?

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  Michael, as I told you in our last e-mail we both have our agendas. I know that you don’t want to open that can of worms here.

  So do I understand correctly that your goal is for bunch of video amateur to passionately debate the validity of the news that they are reporting in order to create public interest?

• 

  ! July 27, 2007

  “people to log-in these sites”.

  boss, we got some real work to do on your vocabulary… it really sounds like 1998.

  how about “users clickon these channels”?

  i’m going to best buy later today, can i get you some floppy disks?

• 

  rosenblumtv July 27, 2007

  “What you are doing in reality is asking the public to wait for somebody to create follow-up posting just to see if the news was accurate? This is just totally insane.”

  Sort of what you do all the time Nino.
  And it is not insane.
  Just as you do it, so too will millions of other people. You are not so unique. In fact, you are my poster child for why a interactive citizen-oriented news site will work. Look how much time and effort you put into just responding here.. not to mention your own site.. and God only knows where else.
  The proof that this is a good investment is in fact… you!
  Marry this passion to participate and dialogue (a very basic human instinct) to news, and we have a winner…

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  C’mon guys, let’s come down to reality. In order for these sites to survive and to entice investors they need revenue and the only way to get revenue is to get people to log-in these sites, without it they’ll fail like others did. With hundreds of reliable news sources available do we seriously think that the viewers will have the time to go thru all this in order to see if the news is accurate? Can somebody tell me why? Why should they, what’s the purpose. What you are doing in reality is asking the public to wait for somebody to create follow-up posting just to see if the news was accurate? This is just totally insane.

  Eric wrote:
  “As for fact checking…one person can post something, another can post a correction. Ultimately, those who post innaccurate information can be flagged and ignored as untrustworthy. The public can sift through and pick their own trustworthy sources. That is how it is supposed to work, I assume.”

• 

  $ July 27, 2007

  Your leaving a little something out. A lot of those news organizations did start out as some form of citizen journalism but the majority of them failed. Not all of them expanded and survived. And “credibility” was not a given just because it was published. Most LOST credibility which caused their demise.

  Simply buying equipment and producing a product does not automatically confer credibility nor success.

  Your thoughts seem to want to ignore that.

• 

  Eric Blumer July 27, 2007

  Is there any “absolute truth” in anything?

  Of course there is.

  The time here is exactly 1:25 a.m.
  I just returned from shooting video at a hospital emergency room. Two cops were shot. The bad guy was also shot in the head. Before that, I shot a house fire. Before that, people going into the the premier of the “Little Mermaid” musical preview. These are facts.

  There are truths. The purpose and goal of journalism is to gather facts, truths, and communicate them to the public.

  Opinion is not truth.

  I was worried when the NPPA took the word “truth” out of the code of ethics.

  Some say…truth does not exist.

  It does. It is now 1:27 p.m. That is truth. I am still alive. That is truth.

  Certainly the future of citizen journalism is interesting. Certainly any citizen could have taken video of the same cop shooting scene, emergency room, and gotten the same facts.

  However, I do not and cannot understand how Joe Blow public will have “access” to police press conferences, inside blocked off roads where fire fighters are working, and inside a world premier of a musical. There are definately certain privilages that “full time professional” video journalists have. I cannot see how the general public will have access to these events.

  I do understand that the public can tell other stories…which professionals do not have access to. So it does go both ways. I do understand the value, realities and potential of citizen journalism.

  As for fact checking…one person can post something, another can post a correction. Ultimately, those who post innaccurate information can be flagged and ignored as untrustworthy. The public can sift through and pick their own trustworthy sources. That is how it is supposed to work, I assume.

  Very interesting.

  Truth does exist.

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  Please Michael, don’t compare established news organizations to CJ web sites. The issue here is credibility and accountability.

  News organizations only hired trained and properly educated journalist with (supposedly) a code of ethic and most of them had to earn their way to the top usually starting in small markets and keep moving upward, the key word here is that they had to earn it.

  Every idiot with a camera in your opinion can be a journalist, no training necessary, no honest or integrity required, just a video camera. Anyone can publish all the lies and offenses that he pleases. Anyone can spread erroneous information just to get even with somebody, the possibility for damage are endless. So what are you going to do if this turn out to be the case, flag his IP address so he will not post again. I’m not saying that they should not be allowed to participate, I’m saying that the absence of control on the published news will drive the public away. Basically video CJ will be a news version of youtube

  On the other hand an established organization knows very well that, like it happen with Dan Rather; if they are wrong somebody will pay for it.

  Granted that there are places around the world where CJ might work better than established news organizations. In many countries networks are subsidized by the government. When I lived in Italy television was owned by the government and people did not trust television news. These are case where free access CJ outlets will have more success and acceptance that conventional news sources but I’m positive that will not work here, of course I could be wrong. Keep in mind that the porno industry, the KKK and Neo-Nazis are all allowed to exist because of the freedom granted under the First Amendment. These are also the people that can create their own news, disseminate their agendas or create character’s defamations on the CJ sites but they could never do it on established news organizations.

• 

  Watching closely July 27, 2007

  Isnt this the same story you pitched to KGTV 1 year ago and WKRN before that? Funny….even after using your “services”, their product STILL looks exactly the same….2 people sitting behind a desk with a box over their shoulder. Your EXACT words to these stations. How have they changed that part?

• 

  rosenblumtv July 27, 2007

  Dear Nino
  As we have never met in person I have no idea if you have an accent or not. You certainly don’t have one when you write.

  In so far as the First Amendment is concerned, it is inextricably tied to the notion of good journalism.

  I live both in the UK and the USA and commute between the two. As a result, I read both American papers and British (I like The Guardian), I watch both American networks and The BBC. You would be surprised to learn that often times coverage of exactly the same story seems to be two totally different stories depending upon where I read or see it.

  There is no ‘absolute’ truth in journalism. Never has been, at least not since the time of William Randolph Hearst.

  Credibility admittedly has to be earned, but one of the most credible news sources in Korea, for example, is a site called Ohmy News, an entirely Citizen based news service. Founded only a few years ago, it is now one of the largest and most powerful news sources in the country and recently brought down the Korean government.

  All news organizations, (save tv networks for entirely cost and technical reasons), began as a kind of Citizen journalism. they grew and expanded and gained credibility over many years.

  It is now technically feasible to do that with video, between inexpensive cameras and edits and broadband delivery. And that is what I intend to try and do.

  As for the ‘ethics’ of what I am doing, I am hardly making a secret of it and frankly you seem to be the only person who sees any problem with it. Believe me, anyone who works with me knows exactly what I am doing. And if they don’t, I am the first to tell them.

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  For someone who supposed to be a professor and a lawyer you have a little problem in the understanding department, maybe is my accent. Once again Michael, are you replying to my post or to somebody else’s? Where did I ever mention the First Amendment and what in the world is the freedom of free press has to do with my post.

  Let me give it another shot. You can publish everything you want and whatever your heart desire, we are talking about the public accepting something that might or might not be accurate and there’s no way on earth that any sort of credibility can be assured therefore there’s no element of trust. In few words the news that they are reading could be phony, misleading, inaccurate, etc. there’s nobody there to check it, on the other hand established news outlets know well that they’ll be forced into accountability should their news reporting be inaccurate, the public knows that somebody will come forward if the news is misleading or inaccurate.

  Let’s see what the news community thinks if what you do is ethical or not.

• 

  rosenblumtv July 27, 2007

  Dear Nino
  Despite the fact that you have worked thirty plus years in some aspect of journalism, you seem to have almost no understanding of what the First Amendment means. I would strongly suggest you read a wonderful book called The Minnesota Rag. It is by Fred Friendly, who was a President of CBS News, Ed Murrow’s producer and my mentor in this business.

  The First Amendment guarantees a free press – that means that anyone is free to publish whatever they see fit and in a sense the marketplace of ideas sorts it ou.

  The technical limitations of broadcasting created an artificial world where only a select few could get access to the air – Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite. This ‘trusted voice’ concept was and is antithetical to the basics of the American Consitution and the Founding Father’s vision of what a free press means.

  For more information on this you might read “The Consitution, That Delicate Balance” also by Friendly.

  As to the ‘ethics’ of a consultant converting tv stations and at the same time building a competitive model, on the contrary my clients find it very interesting and want to know more about how I think it will work. No ethical conflict there as I am quite open about what I am doing.

• 

  Nino July 27, 2007

  The problem (in my humble opinion) of citizen reporting is that there’s no credibility. The most important element of news reporting is accuracy and the only way to get accuracy is by research and investigation, once you have satisfied these two elements then you turn your camera on. But this is not the method that Michael teaches.

  “However, as we both know when we go out to shoot news or docs, we don’t work from scripts. (if only). We are, more often than not, simply accumulating lots of ’stuff’, that will later be sorted through in the edit to craft a story or piece. The writing come after the pictures, not before”.

  These are your own words Michael and your primary methods of reporting news, just shoot and shoot; you totally bypassed the two most important tasks in news reporting. Every journalistic school will stress the importance to get the facts and make sure that they are accurate and reliable. Your entire preaching about VJ and CJ is exactly the opposite, shoot first and find out what you’ve got later. This lack of credible research is the main reason that whatever the news or topic is on these free web outlets is not credible. News can only be trusted if there’s credibility and accountability.

  Whatever the many faults are that you find on the current news methods of reporting it might not be as good as it could be but is still the most trusted one. Dan Rather was sent into retirement because of inaccurate news reporting. These scandals is what give the public a sense of trust knowing that somewhere somebody is keeping an eye on what these established news sources are reporting. These “outdated” news reporting organization know that they will be held accountable for inaccurate reporting. Who is going to keep an eye on these CJ sites; where are the credibility and the accountability factors. Why on earth would “intelligent” people waste their time watching videos of news that are unchecked and not credible?

  Unreliable information will soon or later die of self inflicted wounds, as it has happened with Backfence.com

  One more thing Michael, isn’t kind of unethical getting paid as a consultant to train TV station to change over to your method of news reporting (VJ) in order to bust profitability while at the same time planning to create alternate news outlets that will be in direct competition with your very own clients?

• 

  Mindy McAdams July 26, 2007

  I hope you have studied the experience of Backfence. I’m not trying to shed doom and gloom — just saying the whole Cit-J thing is not simple.

  Also, I regularly read OhmyNews in English. It’s a great site in English. Especially since I can’t read Korean!

  http://english.ohmynews.com/

• 

  daubermaus July 26, 2007

  I spent the last 15 yrs working freelance, but recently took a “day job” doing sales research for a mint. I would love to be involved in some small way.

• 

  John Proffitt July 26, 2007

  I’ve been so disappointed with the whole news business for so long now (on all platforms), I’ve started to think there was no hope. But here’s hoping the Internet’s game-changing nature can change news for the better. In fact, maybe what you’re thinking of shouldn’t even be called “news” once it’s all over.

  I work in an office where I share a wall with a former NPR reporter who is now running our news room. He’s a hard-core journalist. And he’s disappointed with journalism as a field, too. He knows news is busted.

  Michael — if you can pull this off, I would love to be in line to help out. It’s time to revolutionize news and change our very society in the process. Let’s bring on the 21st century Gutenberg revolution.

• 

  Sandlander July 26, 2007

  Sandlander ready to step up to the plate in Abu Dhabi!

• 

  meltaylor July 26, 2007

  into the gates of hell we go….

• 

  rosenblumtv July 26, 2007

  You got it!!!

• 

  ! July 26, 2007

  i want to work with nino!

• 

  Cliff Etzel July 26, 2007

  You know where to find me, Michael.

  Looking forward to your email 🙂