The best of the best in video news are being recognized this week, as the NPPA announces its annual awards.
All of the winners are worth watching, of course, but I usually start with the general news category. It’s the catchall for daily stories that are not breaking news or features. And this year’s winner is…a winner.
Shot by Michael DelGiudice of WNBC in New York, “Absolutely Devastating” looks at the effect of plans to eliminate a Brooklyn bus route. It’s the kind of story that often doesn’t make air because it sounds like it would be boring.
This one is anything but, featuring strong characters, surprises and great shooting:
Other winners include:
Deadline photography–William Middeke, KARE, Minneapolis.
Spot news–Darren Durlach, WBFF, Baltimore.
News feature–Corky Scholl, KUSA, Denver.
Congratulations, all.
Wonderful stories all, shot and written with caring and passion.
They show that television news can still have a heart.
However, I do have a question to pose, without mentioning specific instances.
Why must we feel obligated to break sentences in unnatural places just to insert one more bit of often muddled natural sound? To show we can do it? To let us know the editor was there? To impress judges?
I contend that most of the time, such nat-sot pops add nothing while breaking the flow, calling attention to the process, and detracting from the stories.
Natural sound is good. It’s vibrant. It adds life, pacing, and dimension. But why can’t we limit our use of natural sound to natural places?
These pieces are already rich in skill and craftsmanship. The people who worked them are really good. I envy and admire the work.
However, I submit that less can be more.
You make a good point, Wayne. Nat sound definitely can be overdone, especially when it’s popped in just for “pacing” and doesn’t move the story forward.
I subscribe to what I’ve come to call the Tim Griffis rule: Don’t use nat simply to break up the narration. Use it to glue the story together, like mortar between bricks.
Lets use this story as an example of good use of natural sound. I only found 1 mis-placed nat break (and that’s being subjective). Michael first break within a sentence is at :14. “The ride home from work,” “hour and a half in the afternoon,” is about to get longer for Mildred Escobar. I feel that’s appropriate. The natural sound supports the track well. At :24 “She already takes three,” natural sound of bus, “different,” natural sound of bus, “buses,” natural sound of bus. Michael is trying to use natural sound to convey the message see simply takes 3 buses. I think this is good use of natural sound as well. The natural sound breaks up the track and helps convey a passage of time. I also think he’s trying to get the viewer into the story. From here on through to the end the story is not overly ‘nated.’ If you watch this piece he doesn’t break up another sentence until 1:19 into the story. “And the eleven hundred commuters have an option,” sound of the train, “The JMNZ train…” This time he’s using this as a transition device to get the viewer from inside a bus to a train station. I felt this was very appropriate too. The only one that does break up the sentence that I felt unnecessary was the one at 1:55. “For Anthony and Mildred it’s an extra challenge when June is over,” natural sound of door closing, “and the B-39 is gone. The natural sound of closing the bus door doesn’t really reinforce the track (Michael argue with me!). But then again, the door closing is symbolic. I think there are many stories ‘over-nated’ You learn by trial and error. This is an excellent example of how to do it right.
Shawn Montano
Edit Foundry Creator