Here’s what to do:
Watch one local TV news broadcast (please note which one you viewed – date, time, call letters). Make sure it’s local.
Chart and describe what in the news broadcast is borrowed from entertainment, or what is (or is trying to be) entertaining. What is the news borrowing or using from entertainment as a part of its own rhetoric. Here are a few examples:
- The makeup, hairdos and clothing of the newscasters. Real people don’t do this, don’t look like this. The TV news people are “made up.” Actors playing roles. And the clothing suggests that these roles have something to do with “business.” Suits, ties, pantsuits. “We’re professionals, doing business.”
- Every TV news show has theme music. Real life doesn’t come with theme music. This theme music is upbeat, dramatic, punctuated. And regardless of how much news actually occurred during the day, you can set your watch by the expectation that in exactly 29 minutes, you will hear the same theme music again.
You might comment also on what in the rhetoric of television pre-determined what kind of news you saw? To get at this, think of other types of news, news you might read about in a newspaper or magazine, hear about on radio, or interact with online. Another lens to use: How much of what you saw was staged, or pre-arranged, managed? Think of press conferences, product releases, awards presentations, “events.” Remember: The medium is an important, inseparable part of the message. The form determines in part the content.
Before you are finished, write down what you learn from the broadcast. What has the news taught you that you did not already know? Be as specific as you can.
Describe something about the emotion the news is supposed to evoke? What is the appropriate reaction to what you are seeing? How do you know that this is in fact the appropriate reaction? What are some other reactions?
What are you supposed to do about what you’ve just seen? What action, if any, is suggested? If no action is suggested, what was the point of having seen it, of having watched it?
To think about the essential element of the rhetorics of cinema and television that has to do with verb tense – NOW! – note how far into the past or the future the local news broadcast delves or even references. How much of the news is that day and that day only, and how much is part of a longer timeline, a historical context, if you will? “Now this!”
If you’re really adventurous, or need to impress the prof one last time before grading ;D, then watch also one The Daily Show, at least through the first 15 minutes. Simply look for and chart conventions borrowed from TV news, like Stewart at a desk, with paper, wearing a suit and tie, ‘reading’ the news. In other words, what of the comedy show’s rhetoric is co-opted or hijacked from TV news?
Another way to think about this is to ask how much of what is presented on this comedic expression is actually a fairly serious commentary on the medium itself, on television, as well as on specifically TV news.
DUE as a comment to this post noon, Wednesday, Dec. 7
Finally, I get to be first.
I watched WSBTV as my local station. It’s really amazing how everything “seems” like real life. Watching montages of people working and preparing to search for a little girl (one of the stories I watched was about a young girl that was possibly, probably, kidnapped). This use of the montage really got me thinking about how we perceive time in film and television. Complex actions can be represented in a series of quick shots (and don’t forget the music) and we know exactly (well, we think we do) what happened. Watching this particular montage of average Joes and Janes, I was struck by the fact that these people are probably posing. They’re not actually preparing to go out in search of this little girl. They’re just being presented that way. But it’s “real” to us as an audience. It’s the very same realness that exists in film. It’s hyper-real. People don’t exist in montages, life (as far as we can tell) is linear yet the news presents as something that is chopped up and exciting. Then, looking at news in newspapers and on radio, it seems so much more dull (kind of like real life can be). It’s as if televised news has become The News: The Movie. Life is so fast that the news must become sensationalized so that people will pay attention.
(And just on a side tangent, it seems like every news station is trying to one-up the other news station with The News 2: News Harder. The next thing you know, we’ll have The News: Special Collector’s Blu-Ray Edition in 3D!)
The Daily Show, I found, doesn’t resemble news as much as I think most people think it does. The set of the show and how thing are physically arranged (the desk with the papers on it, the monitors in the background, etc.) are all reminiscent of news shows, but the format of the show is actually much more akin to a late-night talk show. Jon Stewart’s commentary on news isn’t really any more in depth then Jay Leno’s old headline jokes. And the format of the second half the show is exactly like a late-night talk show: a guest comes while music plays, they sit to Stewart’s right, they are separated by Stewart’s desk and the start talking about some item that they have come to promote. But, there doesn’t seem to be any real structure to the interview. It’s less an interview and more a “hey, this is what I’m trying to sell and now we’re going to talk about some random things.”
And that is how the cookie crumbles. Good night and good luck.
me thinking
I also watched WSBTV as my local station and a picked a broadcasting piece that covered Athens since it is closest to my hometown. The broadcasting story covered the death of famed Larry Munson, the voice for UGA football games. Broadcasting television does try to entertain. Like our examples have already said, I noticed that all the reporters were dressed in suits with ties or a bowties. The hair and makeup are done perfectly, just like the actors are made up in the movies. Their voices do no carry the typical southern accent, because they have been trained to talk properly and to have the’ no accent’. My particular video had the UGA fight theme song since it was in tribute to Munson. All the scenes were arranged in this broadcasting piece. The anchor was set in front of a cityscape. The on-scene reporter was in front of the skyline of Athens. One of the interviewees was standing beside a red (UGA color) pickup truck with a white bulldog and was interviewed because he named his bulldog Munson. I’m sure the broadcast reporters just happened to find a man with a bulldog named Munson on the street while they were walking. The girls they interviewed were outside enjoying a meal downtown. And another interview was shown where a mural of Munson’s portrait was displayed. It was all staged in remembrance and tribute to Munson.
I learned that broadcasting must take a lot of time to conduct, especially when the reporters hair has to be perfectly place and the location has to be just right. Also, the interviewees do not look directly into the camera like the reporters do; instead they look a little bit to the side, which seems to be a direction given to them. I knew that broadcasting was all about staging, but the degree to which they carry it out seemed so natural. It’s weird how the unnatural seems so natural. Once I began to really pay attention I saw the cheesiness and how staged everything really was.
The emotion is this piece is clear. It was talking about the passing of a legend, who is dear to many people’s hearts regardless of who their favorite football team is. A montage of old football games with Munson’s’ voice giving the play-by-play was shown, as well as images of Munson. It was sentimental to hear that beloved voice, with so much energy and enthusiasm, tell the action of the game. The viewer was supposed to feel sentimental, sad, and nostalgic. Whenever a hero or a legend, who had been a mainstay in a field for so long, dies, it is hard to say good-bye. You are supposed to remember with fondness those games that you enjoyed with Munson commenting and how those games are the ones that you will think back upon and cherish. It will be the memories like these that will last.
This broadcast piece delves into the past, to remember a legend. It seems to ask, “What will happen now? Will another Larry Munson make his way up the ranks?”
The Daily Show satirizes the news and the ridiculous constructs that we accept everyday as normal, but when one really thinks about the things we say and the actions we do, they are really funny and do not make much sense. Jon Stewart acts like the typical reporter with the suit, tie, and distinguished, graying coiffed hair. The dynamic bylines at the bottom are supposed to grab our attention, but are sometimes incredibly funny. The quick facial change from happy to gravely serious based on the topic matter shows the insincerity of the reporters instead of true emotion, which is the opposite of the empathetic reporters that they are trying to portray. It’s a reality check when it seems that everything we hear and learn for the stations that are supposed to tell us what is going on, current world events, and what reality really is, is nothing more than a script. However, the satirization on the Daily Show does take it to the extreme as it does come across as a late-night talk show, instead of a really well mock up of a typical newscast just as Jonathan mentions.
I also watched WSBTV, Channel 2: Action News, at six o’clock as my local news station of inspiration. There were many elements that were attempting to be big and theatrical, which are put in place to keep audience attention. The newsroom itself was mainly graphics and there was no noticeable part that was separate from green screen technology. Oftentimes, local news stations are stuck with the humdrum news stories that people are impartial about. Usually it is pieces that elicit some type of emotional response that have the greater audience appeal because people actually care about what the outcome is and local news stations rarely get the privilege of presenting these narratives. The anchors were both spiffily dressed, the man in a suit and tie and the woman in a shimmering gold jacket and jewel-toned shirt. It was playing on glamour and prestige. Even the on-scene reporter was all jazzed up in a business suit, which was unfortunate since he standing on a street corner in the rain commenting on new traffic syncing methods. However, his professionalism was upheld, despite the storm, which was quite impressive.
The rhetoric of television plays a big role in the way local news is portrayed. For example, not every story is as effective as a visual story, some are more apt for print; however, since the opportunity for video and still images exists, WSBTV, and most other news sources, take advantage of this pleasantry. For example, one of the stories that was on the news tonight was discussing that North Fulton cities were looking to sync traffic lights in the city to cut down on inner city congestion as people commute to and from work. Now, this story is pertinent to the people of North Fulton, but it does not need a 2 and a half minute spotlight to tell its story. In the story, a reporter stood under a red light as the camera slowly zoomed in to capture its shocking redness. Then, the camera pans to another red light in the same state of stop motion before finally landing on (gasp!) a third red light that was stopping traffic in North Fulton. After these stunning visuals, two individuals, accredited as “drivers” were interviewed and asked for their credible opinions. One guy, named Mr. Long, made a comment about waiting forever and the reporter wittily added that residents of North Fulton were tired of waiting for a “long” time. Please, hold your applause until the end.
The next story that was presented concerned a controversy that the mayor of Clarkston is currently involved in. The reporter on scene enthusiastically claimed that he held in his hand an actual email that the mayor had sent. He waved it around frantically for good measure and then cut to a scene of the mayor typing, in case the audience was in any doubt. And just in case public opinion was still wavering, a random man with gray-hair and a black suit (intelligence points) was interviewed in front of a roaring fireplace with stockings hanging daintily in the background. He agreed with WSBTV in one single line.
Throughout all of these new stories and accounts, the show was peppered with instances of real life. For example, the everyman is seen working hard in laborious fields in a story on labor laws to show that Channel 2 is sympathetic to their cause. All of the b-roll is not really related, but more of an attempt to find any connection to the story. However, the location that is being specified in the piece is not solidified through the footage, so it may be that there is a stockpile of b-roll and it is pulled out when needed.
Now, I know I was just a very harsh critic of this poor local news station. It is not that I am opposed to the medium itself, but more that I am opposed to the lack in luster and quality in its pieces. I understand that local news stations usually have smaller budgets, than say CNN, but the missing links of professionalism and strong footage is discouraging. I appreciate the access to a more personalized view of the news, but if I am presented with the option to watch CNN headline news and then skim the local news on the internet, then that is most likely what I am going to do.
Now, compared to local news stations in the Northwest Georgia area, The Daily Show is much more refined. It has many elements that are intended to make fun of the stereotype of local new stations that present “hard news and facts” to the masses. For example, it begins with a ridiculous opener of spinning globes to the soundtrack of Law and Order mixed with All My Children. Jon Stewart is sitting behind a traditional news desk dressed exquisitely in a jet black business suit. When he presents news stories, a small picture appears in the corner, splitting the screen between Jon’s face and an image, instead of focusing solely on b-roll. He plays off of these images in a humorous ways, however, by making a mockery of different pictures and depictions of people and things. In a tasteful way, of course. The runner that scrolls the bottom of the screen when footage is playing was full of really bad puns. For example, when discussing the election, Stewart referred to it as “INdecision 2012.” Even though Stewart talked about news pieces in a traditional manner, he streaked them with one line jokes that mess with his previously strong demeanor. One of the best examples from his December 5th show is a story about Herman Cain resigning his run for the presidential seat. Stewart and his writers cleverly title it “Oh the Hermanity!” In this segment, Herman Cain resigns by leaving his supporters with one final, moving statement from the closing credits of the Pokemon 2000 motion picture. It is lyrics from the final song, sung by Donna Summer. Only, a satirical look at news would point of this unprofessional factor of his speech. Stewart might be slightly silly when he presents serious topics, but he makes the news more digestible and is much more interesting than the local news.
I chose to watch WRCBtv news on Channel 3 at 5 pm. The introduction sequence for the news was the first indicator that this show wanted to offer its audience more than just information. The logo and animated letters of WRCB flashed across the screen with lights flashing and dramatic music in the background. This sequence had nothing whatsoever to do with informing the public and everything to do with getting their attention and keeping them interested.
The broadcast began with a quick summary of the weather. The meteorologist was dressed in a sharp suit and tie as he presented his information. However, even though he was dressed very formally and business-like, he had a very informal and personable attitude. At one point he said, “Whoah, that stuff is flying!” in reference to storm clouds approaching Tennessee from the southeast. Either he or the network decided that he should act and speak in such a fashion in order to keep the attention of the audience for an otherwise mundane subject.
The female newscaster who appeared after the weather, Cindy Sexton, was dressed in a businesslike gray suit and a vibrant red formal shirt. She also had a large amount of blood red lipstick applied to her lips. In a way she reminded me of an actress playing a businesswoman with her striking makeup and her serious clothes. While it can be argued that her formal attire is necessary for making her appear to be a knowledgeable source of information that the audience can trust, the case can also be made that she and her fellow male newscasters are merely dressing up to give the audience something nice to look at.
The first formal topic that the newscasters touched upon was a death investigation regarding a man found dead in his home, presumably murdered. The newscasters and the correspondent on the scene all adopted serious facial expressions that suited the somber tone of the story. I have a feeling that these somber expressions were very calculated and did not come as naturally to the reporters as one might think. Obviously a report of a death would make all of them a little more serious, but after years of talking about death and misery every day on television, they are likely no longer as fazed by such events and have grown used to discussing them. I sincerely doubt that any of them would smile while talking about a murder, but their expressions were probably intentionally made a little grimmer than they would naturally make if they were not put on the spot by the cameras.
The topic itself also carries some significance. With the exception of the weather report, it was the first thing talked about on that days show. Murders are very sensational, and although it is indeed in the public’s interest to know about a possible murderer on the loose, the topic was most likely given prominence largely due to its interest value to the public. A story concerning elections and votes in Chattanooga aired a while later after the murder story. This story more than likely had a greater impact on the day to day lives of the audience since it concerned the governing officials who make decisions for the people of Chattanooga and whether or not the citizens’ votes were being properly counted. However, a murder is much more “juicy” than a story about voting in terms of its interest value, so it was nudged aside to make room for the story about the death investigation.
Another aspect of the broadcast that interested me was the use of “teasers” before each commercial break. Instead of simply transitioning to the commercials by saying something along the lines of “We’ll be back after some words from our sponsors,” the show played its dramatic music and quickly outlined a few of the topics that they would be talking about next. It almost seemed to me as though the show was saying “Look what we’re going to talk about next! Please keep watching! We’ll keep you interested, we promise!” It certainly says something about the current state of news in that the news has to go out of its way to promise the audience that it will keep being interesting before every commercial break.
One last thing that I noticed was what the newscasters had on the table they were sitting at. Each of them had a small stack of papers and a smart phone, and there was a laptop in the center of the table. Unless they were all taking turns playing solitare on the laptop, tic-tac-toe on the paper, or Angry Birds on the phones during commercial breaks, I sincerely doubt that those objects were being used toward the show at all. They were simply props to make the newscasters look as though they were working on finding fresh news even as they were providing it to the audience.
In summary, the news broadcast was artificial, carefully put together to appeal to the audience, and a little desperate for attention. However, these revelations did not make me any more critical of the show than when I first turned on the television to watch it. The show is just trying to let the audience know what is going on in the world, and it is willing to do anything it can to keep the audience listening in order to keep them informed and to keep earning money for the shows workers. You cannot blame them for trying to survive in the fast-paced world that we live in today.
I watched Channel 2 Action News WBC Local Atlanta at 11pm on December 6th. The first thing that came on, prefacing the news, was the literally drawing of the mega millionaire lottery. They could not simply show the winning numbers, but showed the balls rolling down the plastic ramp, sound effects and all. Sound effects were used throughout the broadcast, particularly as the Channel 2 icon flashed across the screen to depict the changing of reporters/stories.
The broadcasters were not terribly made up. The men were all in suits, but none of them stood out to me as anything fancy. The only lady had a very neutral suit with no jewelry to note. They were not terribly entertaining to look at. But to make up for this, the back wall of the studio, behind the newscasters and screens, was red. It drew attention to the people talking, or past them rather to the screen where there was a constant graphic to aid in what they were talking about.
Everyone that spoke (newscasters, reporters, weatherman) was very animated, annunciating every word and using very vivid facial and hand expressions. I found myself watching the weatherman, wondering what he would do next. They all talked extremely fast, I had to pay very close attention to hear all of the stories and not miss any of the graphics they were displaying. It was almost counter productive, because I had trouble focusing on what I was looking at and listening to simultaneously due to the pace. However, when the camera was not focused on the speaker (more often than not), it was focused on a clip or images of what the person was talking about.
Most of the stories were very similar; several murders (all children), car accidents, break-ins, assaults. And then there were the necessary (albeit brief) rundown on the republican candidates. Although I noticed that they chose not to discuss Herman Cain’s withdrawal, they focused more on the voters and the opinions they had gathered. The most entertaining story was about two former adult bars that had been turned into licensed restaurants but were under law suit for keeping the adult bar atmosphere. Before a commercial break, there was even a graph displayed to show prime fish and game times for tomorrow. Throughout the commercials, I would think the news was coming back on, but it was just an advertisement to a topic coming up after the break. I found this to be entertaining, the news having personalized commercials as if we cannot stand to wait another two minutes.
I don’t think the news taught me any facts that I didn’t know. I did learn that murders do happen frequently, and close to where we are. It makes me feel blessed to know that I can feel safe where I live. I was shocked to learn of so many kidnappings in Georgia, and from the ones covered, they all ended in murder. I’m not sure that I can take a specific action, other than being aware of my surroundings and protecting myself. I should encourage my friends, particularly ladies, to be aware of potential dangers. The news did not directly suggest this, but by showing so many stories of women being kidnapped and/or killed, I think it is an implied warning. Following up the murder stories was one where UGA republican’s club is trying to pass a law to allow students to be able to be licensed and carry concealed weapons. This could also be an implied suggestion to protect oneself.
Perhaps the newscasters speak so quickly because they only have half an hour to discuss the happenings in an entire day. They must cover the big points because there will be new points to cover tomorrow, with no time to rewind to the past.
For my blog, instead of discussing what I see on the news everyday, I would like to discuss an inside look to what actually is happening in the news studio. I recently got the opportunity to shadow CNN anchor Don Lemon for an entire day at the CNN Center in Atlanta. I saw the preparation that went into the news from the ground up. I saw his writers presenting ideas to him and the news team discussing various topics to cover in the news segment. I watched Don writing and re-writing his script and I realized how much work actually goes into making a story as grammatically appealing as possible with as much dramatic appeal as possible. Don took a very bland story from his writer and I watched him season it with ear catching phrases and clever puns that serve to keep the reader engaged in the story. This is similar to entertainment in its attempt to keep the attention of the audience through the appeal of its script. Next, I followed Don into hair and makeup where he, as he explained it, had his “face” put on. Don is already a good looking guy, but with the addition of makeup he looked nearly perfect as he was complemented by the lighting of the studio. Similar to actors on television, we are more likely to be engaged by an attractive individual than an average looking person. Finally, as I was sitting in the studio and watching Don deliver the news, I noticed how fluid he was in talking in a very conversational tone and adding humor where appropriate during the segment. Just like good acting, we do not want to hear an actor reading from a script. It is much more pleasing to hear from a person that is confident in their delivery and does not seem to be reliant on pre-written information. Also, when I asked Don what distinguished him from the many other people who would love his job, he said “It is my ability to think differently.” I realized what he was talking about when he was delivering a story on Herman Cain. Recently, Samuel L. Jackson was named the highest grossing actor in Hollywood, so Don began the story like this: “Color Clash! If it is Herman Cain vs. Obama and Samuel L. Jackson is the highest grossing actor, then does that mean racism is over?” This creativity and freshness is exactly what makes entertainment programs appealing. I had a view of a separate screen that had the SOTs playing in the background when Don was not on camera. During my visit, the Occupy Wallstreet movements were kicking off so the news was filled with coverage. I realized how much the package attempted to portray somewhat of a questionable reality. The package was talking about police brutality vs. the illegal nature of some of the protests and whether force was justified. The clips showed people getting beat up and instances of mass chaos. I realized that a daily viewer may look at this and immediately conclude, “Wow, the confrontation on Wall Street is really bad.” However, in reality this may not be the whole story. The package did teach me some minor things about the Wall Street movement, but most of it I already was aware of. Overall, the preparation and attempts at dramatic appeal in the news today are heavily borrowed from entertainment as a means to keep an audience engaged and attentive.
I watched Channel 2 Action News on WSB-TV at noon on December 6th, and I focused on the story about Georgia Tech students rallying for the right to bring guns on campus. It definitely attempted to be dramatic in its graphic presentation of the program, such as the background newsroom that consisted mostly of computer animated-looking graphics rather than a realistic newsroom. The anchorman was all decked out and made up for the camera, and the reporter at the scene was also dressed up and presentable. However, it also gave off a slight air of amateurism. While there is usually a slight delay/dead air whenever coverage cuts from the newsroom to a live report elsewhere, this delay was noticeably long. Also, the camera work at the scene was a little bit shoddy – the reporter backed away out of frame so that the viewer could see a blue tent in the background (I could not find it so that tells me they were very far away from the actual scene), but the cameraman continues to focus the camera on an boring piece of campus while the reporter continues to talk out of frame. After about 20 seconds, the camera pans over the reporter in a slightly shaky fashion that suggests that the cameraman is thinking “oh..I ought to get her in the shot.” I won’t go into detail with the other stories, but they were all on the same track: focusing on something mundane and coming off as not really knowing what they were doing.
Maybe it’s just because I’m used to watching CNN, but I really was kind of disappointed with this news program. It was like reading the New York Times and then switching over the the Rome News Tribune (I swear I’m not bashing on Rome, but that’s an infamously mediocre paper). While a news station’s first priority should be to report news, it also kind of HAS to contain elements of entertainment – otherwise it would just be the equivalent of some guy reading a newspaper onscreen. If I wanted that I would read the newspaper myself.
I watched a news broadcast from my home TV station in Macon, 13 WMAZ. The broadcast is about some new radar system the weather people have just acquired and how good it is supposed to be. The broadcasters are dressed very businesslike, nice skirt/dress pants, blouse/shirt and tie, nice hair, etc. Although they are actors, this shows these people are professional and mean business. You do not want some hillbilly in a cut off giving the news, no one would listen to him (except nascar fans). The back ground consists of some nifty deep blue designs with a electric red streak going through it. This combination of the blue and red looks relaxed and exciting at the same time. The amateurism comes through when they interview some joe about this new system, over skype. The guy is sitting in his bedroom at home skyping on the news. This guy continues to fill us with a bunch of technical information that is supposed to mean we are getting better weather coverage now. Whatever. All of this is prearranged and managed. The “expert” in atlanta is using his own words but has probably already pre-writtne them. This news broadcast did not really teach me anything except for the fact WMAZ is getting some kind of new radar system. I think the broadcast is supposed to make people go look at WMAZ’s weather since they apparently have the newest and greatest weather. I have to admit, I checked it out to see if I could tell a difference. This broadcast mentions the future and how storm tracking will be forever changed because of this new system. It does not mention the past at all. All in all, the broadcast is a giant show that gives some facts. These people are paid to go and present the current happenings in around georgia just like actors are paid to present some script made by a movie writer.
As I watched the local news report, I noted all of the telltale signs of the entertainment industry that my fellow students have already noted: the ties, the make-up, the blazers, the fake smiles and fake confidence that, despite XYZ, everything is going to be OK. But what’s wrong with that? It’s all fake, but that doesn’t make it inauthentic. Yes, the station is projecting an image, but that doesn’t mean that the image is fundamentally inconsistent to the reality. If my station is the best in the world, no one is going to accept that as reality unless I prove it to them. BEING something is good, but a lot of time and effort has to go into letting the rest of the world know the true nature of what that something is. Does it seem strange that we have to project an image in order to reveal our authenticity? Of course it does. How can something fake prove something real? But those objections have to go by the wayside, because a casual approach to maintaining the appearance of what one genuinely is inevitably results in inconsistency, misconceptions, and distrust. The smallness of the scope of television and news in general means that I cannot get the whole picture of what goes on in news reporting, and therefore the whole must be condensed into a code that I can easily read: business attire = professionalism, smile = confidence. outdoor newsreel = credibility. It doesn’t matter that the dude in a suit doesn’t know a thing about what he’s reading off the teleprompter–the person who wrote it does. It doesn’t matter that she smiles because she used to be a cheerleader–the world really isn’t ending because of last night’s robbery. It doesn’t matter that the building behind the reporter is a block down from the school where the bomb threat happened–the facts were obtained from the appropriate authorities.
At the end of the day, while one may wryly criticize the news industry for their seeming attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, I recognize that they are spending all of that time in order to convey the truth of who they are, and I don’t see anything objectionable about that.
I completely forgot this was due today, but I just had my first taste of the Daily Show, and I love it.