Orlando journalist killed

Orlando TV news journalist, child killed as ‘multiple people’ shot near earlier homicide scene

 

Could have been any of us TV reporters standing outside of a crime scene.

I did that for a decade.

 

A sickening story on every level.

 

C'mon, Charter. Stand up tall ...

“We are deeply saddened fucking outraged by the loss of our colleague and the other lives senselessly taken today,” Charter Communications, the parent company of Spectrum News 13, said in statement shared on Twitter.

 

I started doing live shots in 1976, and my worry was always exactly that.

Dylan Lyons to his rest.

Remembering Spectrum News 13 reporter Dylan Lyons

 

I expect crickets from Governor Law-and-Order on this because it was media.

I’m not going to say this was hatred of media, however. This killer was taking down anyone he felt like.

Of course, just like after the Roanoke killing of 2015, news managers will keep their crews in-house for a few weeks. Then it’ll be back to 11:07 p.m. live shots with “eleven hours ago in front of this apartment complex, it became a parent’s worst nightmare as a community is in shock and people are calling to stop the violence”.

I’ve got three co-workers who worked alongside Mr. Lyons at previous stops. They had a truly horrible evening last night at work — I felt helpless to really offer much of anything.

 

Roll up to an active crime scene in a circus wagon and you'll have an idea what the old paint schemes were like on the first generation of mobile microwave trucks.

And the first generation of truly portable video cameras like the RCA TK-76 needed lots and lots of light just to generate a broadcast-quality image.

So, shooting, stabbing, hostage-taking, fatal fire - what I remember most vividly is the profoundly lonely and frightening sensation of standing on an island of blinding white light in an ocean of darkness.

Completely exposed. Perfectly vulnerable.

 

Not applicable to this specific case, obviously, but I've never understood the point of a stand-up 11 hours after the action took place.

I'm not in TV. What's the rationale? From outside the bubble, it seems the "where" part of who, what, when, where and why is being taken too literally or there's an assumption that viewers need that literal connection? Seems to me the video of when action was taking place provides the "where" and you could just as easily have the reporter speaking from the studio.

 

I agree with Bubbler, but I also was a radio and print guy before I ended my media career. Why should a TV reporter, complete with lights and camera, do a standup at a crime scene, especially if it's in a sketchy area (and I don't know if this is)? I never understood that for this exact reason.

 

So, there are a few reasons for the live shot at a scene that is not "active."

For one... that's generally where the reporter is. If we have a reporter on the scene of a murder that happened earlier in the day, they are typically staying there and putting the story together from the live truck. They're not coming back to the newsroom until they are done.

Ideally, the reporter should be doing or showing something in the live shot. Even if it's just pointing out the home where something took place, a good live shot will include some reason to be there.

Beyond that, the shots are done to add more variety and movement to the newscast. Yeah, you could have the anchors toss to nothing but taped reports or have every reporter at a static newsroom camera... but that's really boring to watch. (In newspaper terms... there are reasons why every page has some kind of art on it, even if it isn't particularly compelling.)

And it's worth noting -- crews in my shop are told that if a scene seems unsafe and you feel uneasy, get the hell out of there first and tell us why later. No one is ever asked or expected to put themselves at risk for a live shot. We've lost co-workers who were killed in an accident on the job and don't take it lightly. (Obviously there's nothing foolproof here. There's no evidence that the crew in Orlando felt unsafe or if the shooter even knew they were a TV crew.)

 

I'm not anti-live shot, but there is no reason for a reporter to be doing a standup at (insert name of stadium here) at 4:31 a.m. I get that people will be talking about it today and the newscast is trying to lay out the day's agenda, for lack of a better term, but a 4:31 a.m. live shot outside a large, empty building seems lazy.

 

Well, two things:

1) Depends very much on the story. Is there something happening there that morning? If there is, the reporter needs to be there and it makes more sense to get there early than in the middle of the morning show. Plus, whatever the reporter is covering, they need to be *somewhere,* and in the newsroom is a terrible option -- particularly for a morning show.

2) You can call it many things, but getting to a scene, getting a live shot up, getting it lit and on the air ain't lazy. It's a big early pain in the ass.