False and Apparently "AI" Derived News Story about KNX's FM changing Format in LA.

[michael hagerty]

At a typical newspaper, before the demise of the copy desk, a minimum of three sets of eyes saw every story before it went to press: the editor who assigned the story, a copy editor on the copy desk "rim," and the copy desk chief, or "slot." And a copy editor was waiting to grab copies of the paper as soon as the first ones started rolling off the presses, bringing them back to the copy desk for a quick once-over to see if anything had made it into print that would require the presses be stopped for a correction to be made.

And this was the way things were done in the '80s and early '90s at a 30,000-circulation daily in a city of 55,000, not a major metropolitan paper. And despite all those people reading everything the reporters wrote, errors still managed to creep into the paper. But the number of errors that get in now dwarf those figures. But no one cares, because the print subscribers don't matter anymore and a story can always be fixed online leaving no trace of the error that prompted the fix. An error in print is there forever.

Yep. And overlooked in all this was that typos, grammatical and fact errors weren't the full extent of the job. As this piece points out, the copy editor used to also work to make the story as readable and easily understood as possible.

Missing in action: Copy editors, a loss to all of us

Herb Strentz: The essence of copy editing was not catching errors in spelling or grammar, but making the news more understandable.

www.bleedingheartland.com

I'm fortunate that, at CapRadio, our editors still operate in that way---both for audio and digital. A rigorous collaborative edit with the reporter, with the goal being clear, concise and conversational copy.

 

[Kelly A]

I'll only do the "I must not have been clear" courtesy once, because, c'mon. I wrote about my being at a Scripps station in 2009, when it launched its first real tech-driven changes:

The reporters and videographers were invited to apply for the new position, but only the reporters who knew how to shoot and edit and the videographers who could report made the cut. And, to be honest, the reporters who could shoot weren't as good at it as the videographers who couldn't report and the videographers who could report weren't as good at it as the reporters who couldn't shoot.

But again, are you claiming that hiring MMJ's and 'hubbing' master control has diluted the quality of news being reported? What does an anecdotal statement; "weren't as good"-mean? Got any examples? In particular, how does hubbing master control negatively effect the news product?

Seems to me you're looking at this through the lens of someone who is used to the old ways when you worked in the business, without any way to articulate how the workflow changes have degraded the product. Sure, many of the new street reporters are now Gen-Z, but that's because stations are trying to make a younger audience feel more at home. Many of these newer reporters have been digital MMJ's prior. And since the overall viewership to local news has decreased due to online media, how do you expect local TV stations to support back-end functions like one-to-one photogs to reporters, when online media has been using MMJ's since the beginning? To me, the vague observation is similar to some on this site that claim good journalism ended after Walter Cronkite hung it up.

There's your first weak link. "Confirmation" in this case is two online sources saying the same thing, without regard to whether one is copying the other, the reputation of both, etc.

I still work in the business, and we've had conversations about how AI can take care of some tedious tasks. Ultimately the consensus has been there will always be humans providing the final editorial review. Usually several.

Or it could put material in the workflow that a human journalist could have rejected out of hand or debunked with a couple of phone calls or e-mails. That's a reporter's job. And the EP and producer have other work to do. There's a newscast to put together.

That's still the case. Again; I haven't seen anything that would indicate any form of AI would be given free reign on deciding what stories go to air and full editorial control what's in them.

 

[michael hagerty]

But again, are you claiming that hiring MMJ's and 'hubbing' master control has diluted the quality of news being reported? What does an anecdotal statement; "weren't as good"-mean?

Kelly, I don't know how to make this sentence any simpler for you:


the reporters who could shoot weren't as good at it as the videographers who couldn't report and the videographers who could report weren't as good at it as the reporters who couldn't shoot.


Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, it should be no surprise that a reporter and writer who can shoot and has done it on occasion is not as good at videography as the person who's devoted their career to being a cameraperson, and vice versa. If you're telling me that you personally can't tell Emmy Award-winning camerawork from mediocre camerawork, or good writing from serviceable writing, I'll accept that.

I included the hubbing of master control not as a sign of dilution of quality but as an example of how Scripps (and other broadcast companies) will employ technology at the cost of jobs, which is why I said:


absolutely willing to embrace technology allowing them to cut costs

Seems to me you're looking at this through the lens of someone who is used to the old ways when you worked in the business, without any way to articulate how the workflow changes have degraded the product.

Which ignores that I got the job at Scripps precisely because I had the skills to be an MMJ:


So many didn't make the cut that they had to then go outside the company, and I happened to know how to shoot, report and edit, so I got the gig. And while I didn't suck as a videographer, I wouldn't have made the top 30 of any of the videographers I've worked with. In fact, if you made a list of all the videographers I had worked with in the 28 years leading up to that job, I'd have been on the bottom of the list.

Sure, many of the new street reporters are now Gen-Z, but that's because stations are trying to make a younger audience feel more at home. Many of these newer reporters have been digital MMJ's prior. And since the overall viewership to local news has decreased due to online media, how do you expect local TV stations to support back-end functions like one-to-one photogs to reporters, when online media has been using MMJ's since the beginning? To me, the vague observation is similar to some on this site that claim good journalism ended after Walter Cronkite hung it up.

I've suspected for a while that you don't actually read what I or others post or link. This suggests that at minimum you don't read it carefully.

I was responding to the report of two Scripps stations using AI in their newsrooms. I have personal experience with Scripps and their willingness to embrace new and sometimes disruptive technology. It got me my job there. I did not advocate abandoning the MMJ model and returning to the old days.

I still work in the business, and we've had conversations about how AI can take care of some tedious tasks. Ultimately the consensus has been there will always be humans providing the final editorial review. Usually several.

Not knowing who you work for, I don't have an opinion on how far I'd trust that assurance. I think some chains will be far less cautious than others.

 

[Loverofradio]

And now it's coming back to me---you're at a TV station.

Okay. So you have a digital content manager. You kinda have to.

For broadcast, how many sets of eyes looks at a reporter's copy before he, she or they record the narration or go live from the field?

lol!! It’s ok! i used to do it when I was main anchor at my last station. I was also sports director. So when I was out in the field, our digital manager did it. But, where I am now. I’m just sports director (sports is more fun than news in tv lol). Here executive producers look at scripts before giving final approval

 

[davideduardo]

Here executive producers look at scripts before giving final approval

Look at? I hope you mean "check and verify".

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly, I don't know how to make this sentence any simpler for you:


the reporters who could shoot weren't as good at it as the videographers who couldn't report and the videographers who could report weren't as good at it as the reporters who couldn't shoot.


Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, it should be no surprise that a reporter and writer who can shoot and has done it on occasion is not as good at videography as the person who's devoted their career to being a cameraperson, and vice versa.

And you're either avoiding answering or unable to articulate what you define as 'not good'. Is it you're somehow convinced the MMJ's can't get the exciting shots? To put it another way; are you criticizing their choice of shots? Are they missing the mark when it comes to camera settings or lighting? Do you actually have noted examples, or is the criticism based on the fact that things are just different than in the old days? And moreover, do you think it really matters to the modern audience used to smartphone video? Seems to me this is very similar to those who criticize voice tracking for radio: 'Back in my day we only had live people behind the mic, and an engineer running the board'. 'Now that they have computers doing the work, everything has turned to sh*t.' My "obtuse" question would be the same: What do you mean by everything has turned to sh*t? Give me examples.
The reason for asking all this, is I've seen no audience research that has ever been critical of reporters who set up their own shots. There may be the standard criticism of the reporter and how they carry themselves, what they're wearing, how they spoke, they're too young, etc., but similar comments of reporters have been around including in the old days when photogs went out with reporters.

Of course, their shots may not be as professional as someone who gets paid exclusively to get a shot looking a certain way that you may have preferred years ago, but things have changed since then. The migration to online hasn't been held up because viewers are SO offended by the way some MMJ sets up their camera. Why do you think it matters to your average TV viewer in the target demographic(s) today?

If you're telling me that you personally can't tell Emmy Award-winning camerawork from mediocre camerawork, or good writing from serviceable writing, I'll accept that.

If we're talking about a reporter standup at a fire, accident, or shooting, no. Again, your average viewer isn't paying attention to cinematography.

I included the hubbing of master control not as a sign of dilution of quality but as an example of how Scripps (and other broadcast companies) will employ technology at the cost of jobs, which is why I said:

absolutely willing to embrace technology allowing them to cut costs

And my experience is that cutting of costs on the back end, allows for spending that money more on the editorial, or front end, by hiring more reporters, rather than MC operators. More reporters equal more stories and more content.

Which ignores that I got the job at Scripps precisely because I had the skills to be an MMJ:


So many didn't make the cut that they had to then go outside the company, and I happened to know how to shoot, report and edit, so I got the gig. And while I didn't suck as a videographer, I wouldn't have made the top 30 of any of the videographers I've worked with. In fact, if you made a list of all the videographers I had worked with in the 28 years leading up to that job, I'd have been on the bottom of the list.

So what's your problem then? Or are you just saying that someone younger with MMJ skills can't be as good as a grizzled veteran like you?

I've suspected for a while that you don't actually read what I or others post or link. This suggests that at minimum you don't read it carefully.

I read just fine, thanks. I suspect in this case we've been talking around each other trying to understand the point.

I was responding to the report of two Scripps stations using AI in their newsrooms. I have personal experience with Scripps and their willingness to embrace new and sometimes disruptive technology. It got me my job there. I did not advocate abandoning the MMJ model and returning to the old days.

And I've developed and implemented more of that disruptive technology used in the TV news business than most. What I get frustrated about; is when industry veterans are critical of changes due to tech or workflows but aren't able, or refuse to articulate why, other than it's new and people that they had a working relationship with over the years end up losing their jobs. Or that because something isn't done like it was twenty years ago, it's crap. As a friend of mine jokingly used to ask me: "Hey Kelly, how many people did you automate out of work this week?"

Not knowing who you work for, I don't have an opinion on how far I'd trust that assurance. I think some chains will be far less cautious than others.

I'm not looking for your assurance Michael. You seem to be a good guy, but I hardly feel the need to validate my credentials through you.

 

[Loverofradio]

Look at? I hope you mean "check and verify".

Yes sir! check and verify. Of course, if it was a larger story, we’d get corporate lawyers (who work in news now) to look at the scripts and they‘d give the green light remotely within a few minutes

 

[michael hagerty]

And you're either avoiding answering or unable to articulate what you define as 'not good'. Is it you're somehow convinced the MMJ's can't get the exciting shots? To put it another way; are you criticizing their choice of shots? Are they missing the mark when it comes to camera settings or lighting? Do you actually have noted examples, or is the criticism based on the fact that things are just different than in the old days? And moreover, do you think it really matters to the modern audience used to smartphone video? Seems to me this is very similar to those who criticize voice tracking for radio: 'Back in my day we only had live people behind the mic, and an engineer running the board'. 'Now that they have computers doing the work, everything has turned to sh*t.' My "obtuse" question would be the same: What do you mean by everything has turned to sh*t? Give me examples.
The reason for asking all this, is I've seen no audience research that has ever been critical of reporters who set up their own shots. There may be the standard criticism of the reporter and how they carry themselves, what they're wearing, how they spoke, they're too young, etc., but similar comments of reporters have been around including in the old days when photogs went out with reporters.

Of course, their shots may not be as professional as someone who gets paid exclusively to get a shot looking a certain way that you may have preferred years ago, but things have changed since then. The migration to online hasn't been held up because viewers are SO offended by the way some MMJ sets up their camera. Why do you think it matters to your average TV viewer in the target demographic(s) today?

Kelly, I know you're not stupid and you insist you're not being obtuse.

For a guy who loses it when someone else goes off topic, you've done exactly that here---taking an answer to Loverofradio's claim that "News companies (at least in local TV) won't use AI" which provided context to the news that Scripps is doing just that. You've gone off into four posts about my definition of "good" videography, which has nothing to do with the topic, and which until now, I've responded to in good faith without taking us further into the weeds.

I have told you what I said, exactly, and why I provided that as context for Scripps' move into AI in at least two of its newsrooms. No one else is confused by it or pretends to be confused by it. I'm done.

 

[cc333]

I don't have much to add to, um... these topics, except for the following:

It won't make the cow.

Well, with those experiments in lab-grown meet going on, perhaps in time AI will make cows too (well, cow meat, AKA beef).

KSHB in Kansas City has run news stories with AI generated voices reading them and marks them as AI generated content onscreen. I don’t know if the station creates the AI generated content for the stories or if it’s created by the station’s owner, Scripps.

I was listening to a WRMI Legends broadcast on shortwave a few weeks ago (either over a KiwiSDR or over the air on one of my radios, I don't remember), and they broke to a rather tedious and almost droll newscast that sounded like it could've been AI generated, because the voice's cadence, while it seemed okay enough superficially, as I listened more closely, I found that it began to seem rather stilted and almost artificial. Could they be using the same technology as KSHB, I wonder?

c

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly, I know you're not stupid and you insist you're not being obtuse.

For a guy who loses it when someone else goes off topic, you've done exactly that here---taking an answer to Loverofradio's claim that "News companies (at least in local TV) won't use AI" which provided context to the news that Scripps is doing just that. You've gone off into four posts about my definition of "good" videography, which has nothing to do with the topic, and which until now, I've responded to in good faith without taking us further into the weeds.

In other words, you're avoiding answering with more specifics your comments that TV news, Scripps in particular, has become not as good or worse since using automation, MMJ's, and a hubbed master control? Got it. For some reason, I thought you'd at least try and defend your stance on the subject, but guess not. Instead, you deflect. Discussion board, remember? If you take the hill, why not defend it? If you tell me that you don't like automation, AI, or whatever putting humans out of work, then that's at least attempting to defend your view. It would have nothing to do with the quality of the product, but more the humanitarian aspects of what automation and potentially AI does to the industry.

I have told you what I said, exactly, and why I provided that as context for Scripps' move into AI in at least two of its newsrooms. No one else is confused by it or pretends to be confused by it. I'm done.

One sound comes to mind: 'Buh-ga'.

 

[michael hagerty]

In other words, you're avoiding answering with more specifics your comments that TV news, Scripps in particular, has become not as good or worse since using automation, MMJ's, and a hubbed master control? Got it. For some reason, I thought you'd at least try and defend your stance on the subject, but guess not. Instead, you deflect. Discussion board, remember?

One more time:

That's not what I said, you know that's not what I said, everyone reading this thread knows it's not what I said.

Moreover, we've seen this movie before, Kelly. Goes back at least as far as "Is Carly Simon Classic Rock?", maybe further:


* Topic begins.

* Kelly disputes the premise, states his opinion.

* Other posters state their opinions, which don't align with Kelly's.

* Kelly starts taking personal potshots at the most vulnerable of those posters, suggests the thread be closed because it's gone off-topic.

* Additional posters provide factual evidence.

* Kelly calls the posts "boogeymen" or some such.

* Posters add anecdotal context to the original post.

* Kelly intentionally goes after the points NOT being made in the context posts and insists that they were made because the poster wants stuff the way it was in the old days and that the points not being made be defended.

* A moderator steps in and it's 50/50 as to whether the thread is closed because of the unpleasantness or not. Which, if you go back to item four, is what Kelly wanted in the first place.

 

[Kelly A]

* Kelly intentionally goes after the points NOT being made in the context posts and insists that they were made because the poster wants stuff the way it was in the old days and that the points not being made be defended.

So, you didn't say this?
"I must not have been clear---the point was that Scripps, which has had a well-deserved reputation for journalism over the years, made moves enabled by technology that diluted the quality of the content and the focus of the journalists."

Pretty sure you said this:

"The reporters and videographers were invited to apply for the new position, but only the reporters who knew how to shoot and edit and the videographers who could report made the cut. And, to be honest, the reporters who could shoot weren't as good at it as the videographers who couldn't report and the videographers who could report weren't as good at it as the reporters who couldn't shoot."

And I responded by asking you to cite examples where you felt the implementation of technology "diluted the quality of the content and the focus of the journalists". All you did was come back with 'read what I wrote'. For whatever reason, you steadfastly refuse to respond to the questions or stand by your comments, by deflecting like you never made the comments. And to me, this isn't changing the subject. AI is technology, and as you claimed in your statements listed above, that Scripps had a history of adding technology that diluted the quality of the content, just as they are proposing by using AI.

* A moderator steps in and it's 50/50 as to whether the thread is closed because of the unpleasantness or not. Which, if you go back to item four, is what Kelly wanted in the first place.

That's right Mike, cut and run away.

 

[frankberry]

Take your pissing contest elsewhere. Thread closed.