A technical review of Palin's interview from a producer's POV

[Burgold]

This may belong in the Palin thread, but I think it stands alone:

What struck me about the Palin interview were the technical elements. The fact that several answers were clipped and the audio turned off. The way the producers did not shift to Gibson or use B roll when doing this. Often, when you have a video element that runs to long and there is an actuality that you think needs to cut off, you flip to the other interviewer for a reaction shot or show an image of what the interviewee is talking about, so when the words run out they seem natural and not as if you are cutting the person off.

There were a lot of noticable produced moments in that inteview and sadly, they are all the stuff I do when I am protecting a subject. When I'm cutting things to try to make the feature makes sense and make the subject look reasonable. For the editing and production flaws to be as noticeable as they were in this interview also means that it was a rush job. The guys at the network national news level are very good. They must have been really hard pressed to figure out how to chunk and it this into something that was useable at all.

Also, I've never seen "Charlie" so hard. The cutaways to him asking questions seemed like someone who was trying to hide it, but of a reporter who was deeply frustrated and upset with his subject. It could be bias, but Charlie's been in the game a long time. His voice, his demeanor, and body language all spoke that he was displeased with her.

I would love to see the raw tape on this. Just watching it on tv I can tell that there is a lot that's on the floor that would have been telling. In any case, the producers were trying very hard to salvage the piece whether it was because Gibson was being too much of a jerk or Palin was incoherent and stumbling too often on basic questions, I don't know, but there were a hell of a lot of edits within the cuts of that piece and bad edits that were visible.

[PeterMP]

There are transcripts out there.

From reading the transcript, I don't think it was any worse than the video segment.

[Burgold]

When I prepare a piece, the transcript isn't raw or complete. It is a trascript of the material I plan to use in the piece. Thus, it should be much better, because the lousy cuts, and production-side glitches I saw should not be seen. It should read smoothly. Unless they are unabridged transcripts (and if they are, I'm talking too much) they are just mirrors of what we saw last night.

It's just unusal to see so many obvious technical errors on a network news broadcast. That "produced" piece was really poorly assembled.

[Burgold]

Mind you, editting itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Usually, I record about 40 minutes worth of material for a 6 minute piece. That's just SOP, it was mainly the clumbsiness and technical lapses that made me think there is something over the top going on. It felt like a first "chunking" where you're just cobbling the piece together while trying to protect the subject and make the piece watchable.

[twa]

It's just unusal to see so many obvious technical errors on a network news broadcast. That "produced" piece was really poorly assembled.

I agree it was badly chopped up, and prefer to see the whole sequences...I understand it will be available in full today?

[Burgold]

I heard something about that, but I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I've seen a production job that badly botched up. And there really isn't any good reason for it other than deadline (but these guys always work under extreme deadlines) or trying to salvage a terrible interview where they were forced to do major reconstructive surgery just to make it work (within the time constraints of an A segment).

I was just shocked at how badly it was done (from a technical POV)

[Sarge]

Evidently they chopped some segments, not that there's any leftwing bias:rolleyes:

The complete interview aired in the middle of the night on Nightline

But you know, no bias

[Sarge]

I heard something about that, but I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I've seen a production job that badly botched up. And there really isn't any good reason for it other than deadline (but these guys always work under extreme deadlines) or trying to salvage a terrible interview where they were forced to do major reconstructive surgery just to make it work (within the time constraints of an A segment).

I was just shocked at how badly it was done (from a technical POV)

I call BS. This interview was done a couple of days ago. Had this been Obama speaking to the drone masses, it would play in continuous loop all day every day for a week

[Burgold]

Evidently they chopped some segments, not that there's any leftwing bias:rolleyes:

The complete interview aired in the middle of the night on Nightline

But you know, no bias

That's possible, Sarge. I would guess that there would be the usual reasons for chopping though. A newshow has set parameters for the A, B, C and D segments. They need to fit within that window. There's some wiggle room, but not as much as you sometimes would like.

I didn't see the nightline only the ABC nightly news version. The thing is, almost all canned pieces are editted somewhat, but usually those cuts are invisible even to those with really good eyes and ears. There are all sorts of techniques to do it. Time is everything. Usually, especially in tv, you don't do a lot of internal cuts. You leave the actualities intact, but sometimes the intro or a tangent or a repititive statement will be cut.

Editting is an important and dangerous feature, because it really is pretty easy to make your subject say something very different than what they meant to say. I'd say most of the time, the quotes are not only accurate, but reflective. I think that was true of yesterday too, but man was there some bad work being done. And that begs the question... why?

On my pieces, often it's a struggle of too much good material and choosing between which I can keep and which I just can't. This seemed like the other problem which I've had to deal with too. How do you salvage a bad interview.

Edit: If it was done a couple of days ago, then there were huge problems with the piece and major disagreements. That was a sloppy, terribly produced segment.

[TimmySmith]

I heard something about that, but I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I've seen a production job that badly botched up. And there really isn't any good reason for it other than deadline (but these guys always work under extreme deadlines) or trying to salvage a terrible interview where they were forced to do major reconstructive surgery just to make it work (within the time constraints of an A segment).

I was just shocked at how badly it was done (from a technical POV)

I disagree with the "A segment" line. This was an A++++++ segment, while time was a factor it would not be a constraint. The whole thing reeks of too many producers in the edit room.

[Burgold]

I disagree with the "A segment" line. This was an A++++++ segment, while time was a factor it would not be a constraint. The whole thing reeks of too many producers in the edit room.

I'm using A segment as a technical term. Segments are coded by letters to indicate how much time and where in the show they are fit, but yeah, I think there definately may have been too many cooks and they were working on this right up to broadcast (although, again that isn't unusual to have something that is being worked and reworked until airtime)

Mind you, I'm only giving my POV and I'm coming from a radio mentality. I did do some work in tv, but it was as a cameraman and technical director for a cable religious program... so, my tv experience isn't particularly germain or relevant.

[McMetal]

Blatantly coached, not a whit of spontaneity.

I've heard 8th grade oral book reports that sounded less rehearsed. ]

Just sad.

[Sarge]

Blatantly coached, not a whit of spontaneity.

I've heard 8th grade oral book reports that sounded less rehearsed. ]

Just sad.

I agree. ABC should trot out someone better than Gibson to bash Palin