Notes from Monday's WINOL debrief...
Firstly, I'll mention an editorial point as it is not evident from the actual output of the bulletin.
Most of the team were disappointed that mine and Stu's interview with a PCSO didn't get included in the bulletin. The thefts in the library were a security risk and the information he gave was relevant to all on the campus.
We also took close-ups of security packs that the police were circulating, which included a lanyard (pictured, right). It would have been something of a public service to have made people aware of this.
We were also reminded how important our choice of clip is for the headlines. When the top stories are being read out, the best shot from each package should be in vision; if that shot is not striking in any way, it doesn't look promising for the rest of the bulletin in the eyes of our audience.
Another editorial point - We may have ran away with the fact that Stu's story was about student housing, so just put it at the top of the bulletin on that basis. As the story wasn't contemporaneous (the script said "next year"), it may have needed to be dropped down the order.
There was too much 'expo' (stats) in most of the packages. We need to focus more on what people are going to actually do. But, in light of this, we need to remember to maintain balance; Claire's story involved a Tory-led council but only Labour and the Lib Dems got to voice their opinion.
There was a glaring spelling mistake in a text graphic included in Tom's package. 'I' before 'e' except after 'c,' as in 'received.' It would really put me off a news channel/bulletin to see something like that, but Stu is including a statement in his package this week, a chance for the team to immediately make amends! Sorry Tom!
Finally, in Sport, we don't have to describe the action as such, we can add extra (but related) information while the pictures speak for themselves.
Circulation figures for the bulletin were nowhere near our target, we need to spread the word and then get it right on Wednesday.
Firstly, I'll mention an editorial point as it is not evident from the actual output of the bulletin.
Most of the team were disappointed that mine and Stu's interview with a PCSO didn't get included in the bulletin. The thefts in the library were a security risk and the information he gave was relevant to all on the campus.We also took close-ups of security packs that the police were circulating, which included a lanyard (pictured, right). It would have been something of a public service to have made people aware of this.
We were also reminded how important our choice of clip is for the headlines. When the top stories are being read out, the best shot from each package should be in vision; if that shot is not striking in any way, it doesn't look promising for the rest of the bulletin in the eyes of our audience.
Another editorial point - We may have ran away with the fact that Stu's story was about student housing, so just put it at the top of the bulletin on that basis. As the story wasn't contemporaneous (the script said "next year"), it may have needed to be dropped down the order.
There was too much 'expo' (stats) in most of the packages. We need to focus more on what people are going to actually do. But, in light of this, we need to remember to maintain balance; Claire's story involved a Tory-led council but only Labour and the Lib Dems got to voice their opinion.
There was a glaring spelling mistake in a text graphic included in Tom's package. 'I' before 'e' except after 'c,' as in 'received.' It would really put me off a news channel/bulletin to see something like that, but Stu is including a statement in his package this week, a chance for the team to immediately make amends! Sorry Tom!
Finally, in Sport, we don't have to describe the action as such, we can add extra (but related) information while the pictures speak for themselves.
Circulation figures for the bulletin were nowhere near our target, we need to spread the word and then get it right on Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment