On-camera talent?

Don't most of us report about sports we never played? Maybe this is how athletes and coaches feel about the crap we write about them?

 

So I guess all those years of say, 60 Minutes doing interviewee cutaways... The viewers really voiced their displeasure with it... by making it a Top 10 rated show.

Again, with all the F'ed up stuff going on in TV... You pick this....

 

Sorry, alley, we finally found something (kinda) to part ways on.

Not saying it's right .... but .... After all, it's "Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel," "Outside The Lines With Bob Ley," "The George Michael Sports Machine," "Jim Rome Is Burning," etc.

The hosts are the stars, by network fiat. Guests are only present to rub their star status off on said hosts. People tune in to see Peyton Manning and wind up with a snootful of Snooty Host. But it doesn't make a fuck because people tuned in, period.

 

OK all you smarty pants. Solve this problem.

You have an interview with Perry Player. There's 30 minutes of taped interview, and you have 3 minutes for the piece.

Perry Player tells a great story-- it's hilarious. It's the money shot of the interview. It's the story of something that happened in a game back on August 12, 1983. The problem is, in the middle of telling the story, he goes off on a tangent about his Aunt Betty. Then he gets back on track and finishes the story.

So now you must edit out Aunt Betty. You "butt edit" (that's what we call it) the first part of the August 12, 1983 story with the second part. You've created a cut-- a seam.

Now you must cover that cut. But you don't have video of that game back on August 12, 1983-- nobody does. It would be dishonest and unethical to cover it with video of another game. To do so would be the equivalent of a print person using a quote out of context. No other cover shots work because he's talking about a specific play.

What do you cover it with?

 

I think you mean Gary Player.

 

Luggy, I'm not disagreeing with you about the editing aspect. But the average viewer couldn't give a care about the difficulties of our jobs. Readers never gave a rump about production problems at my papers, reporter shortages, etc., etc. They cared about why their gardening show didn't make it in the paper.

I'm not saying viewers turned off 60 minutes because they showed the interviewer. But I've heard people -- read parents, people in bars, etc -- say, "I don't want to see that guy. Get him off there."

You're telling me why you must do it, and I'm telling you why people (me included) don't like it. The two don't have to sync up. And is this the biggest issue in TV right now? No, but I wasn't aware it had to be an enormous problem for it to be posted on a message board, especially this one. People nitpick all the time, and I'm no different.

 

Now you can educate the people in the bar...

"Sometimes they have to do it that way. They have no choice."

 

Dirty pictures of Rachel Nichols? ;D

 

"Yeah, I hate seeing Schapp's ugly mug too. Whadda ya' gonna do?"

 

Well, I watch TV so I'm an expert, too.

An interview implies there are two people involved.  Part of the story is the questioning. It's not the electronic version of a newspaper story where you have a final product. It's the friggin' process.

If it's a five minute interview, the last thing I want to see is the person being interviewed with a disembodied voice in the background asking questions. Just bad television.

 

Ahhhhh... Sane people! I knew there was a reason I frequent this site. Thank you, JR! 8)

 

Any time.