Comments on: Inside an investigative TV story http://www.newslab.org/2009/12/07/inside-an-investigative-story/ Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:42:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Wiley Post http://www.newslab.org/2009/12/07/inside-an-investigative-story/comment-page-1/#comment-1408 Wiley Post Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:08:43 +0000 http://www.newslab.org/?p=1841#comment-1408 Great pieces by both teams. There were a few interesting differences that are immediately noticeable based on the premise. One was the set up. WFOR used hidden cameras in what seems like a classic "investigative" style. Very in your face but also useful because it did give the suspects a face. I thought it was a little bit overused and some of the content wasn't the best quality but they did introduce one of their later subjects "HIV-Positive man" as a character which was good storytelling. 60 Minutes took the different tack-- and one that seems more like a local affiliate move-- they did the "ride-along". It worked on two levels. It provided plenty of cover video and content for the story and for a non-local it established the empty strip mall landscape. For a local, that might be an obvious scenario, but for a national audience I thought it established the scene for the story well. It also fit better with their law enforcement angle as opposed to the victim angle taken by WFOR. Also -- the use of silhouettes for interviews vs. the makeup/facial hair for 60 Minutes interview subject. At first I thought it seemed silly to just use the makeup. Then I put some thought into it and it made more sense. First, he was already incarcerated so the threat to his identity is probably less of a factor than for the two people interviewed by WFOR who are still presumably on the street and at greater risk. Also..the exposure from a local news outlet would provide a greater chance of being recognized for the WFOR subjects than the risk of being seen on 60 Minutes. I imagine that risk would be compounded by continuing coverage across platforms where that interview might continue to be available on a local website and in a special newscast like the one WFOR ran. Another difference... Access. While both had good interviews with FBI field agents and DSHS agents 60 Minutes access as a national news outlet provided good depth and context through the interviews with AG Holder and the HHS Medicare executive. Would WFOR's piece have benefitted? Yes. But in the context of a local piece I think the lack of access really didn't hurt that much. In fact, it kept the run-time shorter which is probably important when it comes to actually getting the piece on air in a normal newscast. Kudos to both teams. A couple of very good pieces on a subject that otherwise wouldn't be making news. Great pieces by both teams. There were a few interesting differences that are immediately noticeable based on the premise.

One was the set up. WFOR used hidden cameras in what seems like a classic “investigative” style. Very in your face but also useful because it did give the suspects a face. I thought it was a little bit overused and some of the content wasn’t the best quality but they did introduce one of their later subjects “HIV-Positive man” as a character which was good storytelling.

60 Minutes took the different tack– and one that seems more like a local affiliate move– they did the “ride-along”. It worked on two levels. It provided plenty of cover video and content for the story and for a non-local it established the empty strip mall landscape. For a local, that might be an obvious scenario, but for a national audience I thought it established the scene for the story well. It also fit better with their law enforcement angle as opposed to the victim angle taken by WFOR.

Also — the use of silhouettes for interviews vs. the makeup/facial hair for 60 Minutes interview subject. At first I thought it seemed silly to just use the makeup. Then I put some thought into it and it made more sense. First, he was already incarcerated so the threat to his identity is probably less of a factor than for the two people interviewed by WFOR who are still presumably on the street and at greater risk. Also..the exposure from a local news outlet would provide a greater chance of being recognized for the WFOR subjects than the risk of being seen on 60 Minutes. I imagine that risk would be compounded by continuing coverage across platforms where that interview might continue to be available on a local website and in a special newscast like the one WFOR ran.

Another difference… Access. While both had good interviews with FBI field agents and DSHS agents 60 Minutes access as a national news outlet provided good depth and context through the interviews with AG Holder and the HHS Medicare executive. Would WFOR’s piece have benefitted? Yes. But in the context of a local piece I think the lack of access really didn’t hurt that much. In fact, it kept the run-time shorter which is probably important when it comes to actually getting the piece on air in a normal newscast.

Kudos to both teams. A couple of very good pieces on a subject that otherwise wouldn’t be making news.

]]>