I see this quite a bit, what’s up with it? Is there some sort of psychological aspect to it?
Could you clarify your question? My guesses:
- Why do reporters walk toward the camera (instead of approaching it obliquely or strolling across the field of view):
Because that way they remain in the center of your screen and you don’t have to worry about what you’re supposed to focus on.
- Why do reporters walk toward the camera (instead of cameramen approaching the reporter):
It’s easier to move the reporter than all that equipment.
- Why do reporters walk toward the camera (instead of jumping up and down, cartwheeling, or sitting still):
A talking head isn’t the world’s most exciting visual. I think the vast majority of reporters stand or sit relatively still, but if you’re going to move, approaching the camera is the least distracting way to move. Plus, I suspect you’re right that it’s supposed to have a psychological benefit.
If the reporter is walking the camera, and the camera is also moving, they are showing off a Steady-cam. The news director is showing the station manager that he really did need that very costly camera. :dubious:
What I mean is, when you see a piece on say, “the sale of thanksgiving turkeys” the reporter will be inside a supermarket and saying something like “with the sudden rise in the sales of turkey, this local store is doing pretty well” while walking slowly toward the camera.
The image is (theoretically) more interesting and eye-catching if the subject is moving. That’s pretty much all there is to it.
I’ve come to call this one of the great cliches of early 21st-century media, along with jiggly camera work in commercials and TV drama, and the splicing in of white frames to make a flashing effect in scene transitions in music videos. I most often notice this ‘walking toward the camera’ effect in any of the bookend sequences with Robert Osborn on Turner Classic Movies, and with Nicole whatshername of the Weather Channel in her morning report; their respective walks are so ritualized that I can’t help but laugh every time see them.
Nah. It’s handheld 95% of the time. News agencies don’t use steadicams, too limiting. Now, in a magazine format show, they may occasionally use something like that to make a nicer shot.
And yes, as stated before, it’s to give a boring shot a tiny bit of movement to make it a little less boring.
As for flash frames, those haven’t been spliced in for, well, a decade or two. We use computers to fake them nowadays. 
Having shot a few standups this week I can offer the following observations:
-
Walking towards the camera is usually just an activity to do while the reporter is saying their lines.
-
Steadycam? News? Ha! Tripod or shoulder, 2 choices.
-
I actually prefer to move the camera myself, it gives a more unique view than standing still.
-
If possible we do try to have a motivation - is the reporter describing something? Are they revealing something in the move? Sometimes we try to get real creative with our moves.
and finally
- If they walk away from the camera then I’m shooting the back of their head. That’s not what my news director wants to see…
Maybe it’s to prevent something like this from happening?
I’ve noticed that 60 Minutes has a tendency to go for the rolling shot, i.e. the late Ed Bradley was fond of walking along a leaf-strewn street while explaining something Congress had been caught doing. I can tolerate it because at least they don’t throw in sappy music and endless repetition, like Dateline.