Why do the production values of local TV shows look so 4th rate?

Reflecting the national scene, our local cable company has a couple of cable access channels, giving the local yokels a voice on the air. Among the many problems with these programs is the entire look is so amateurish–terrible lighting, terrible backdrops, terrible sound. But my biggest objection is the picture quality itself.

If you compare these production values to, say, the CBS Evening News, it’s practically like comparing the CD to the old 78.

Can it really be that expensive to approximate that look of a network station? I’m not talking sumptuous woods and telegenic hosts, but just the essentials?

In short, what advantages have the major networks?

I’m sure you’re right.

We have the local city council meetings on access channels and they look so much worse than when, in the same room, the major newscasters cover the mayor’s latest speech.

I’ve seen the pro equipment close up and it’s not all that fancy.
So the poor quality is due to nobody caring the minimal amount.
I don’t think it takes money, or special equipment, but just someone has to bother setting light and sound levels on the equipment they already own.

There’s also often an overwhelming lack of experience on the parts of the people producing the local shows. Some only attend something like a 3 day workshop put on by the local cable company, and learn next to nothing about production values.

News Anchorman [quietly, after breaking to a commercial]: “I think I could use some makeup.”

News Producer [standing in the control room, turns to Stage Left and yells]: “MAAAAKE-UUUP!!”

[From Stage Left comes a makeup artist, bearing aloft a large powderpuff, which she slams, without any hesitation or warning, into the anchorman’s face, and, without stopping, continues her mad dash to Stage Right. A huge explosion of talc powder envelops a three-foot radius: the anchor’s head and torso and the news desk are thoroughly dusted, and the powder’s whispy penumbra even reaches the station backdrop and the overhead mike. The camerman prudently pulls back a couple of feet, and then a couple of feet more.]

The anchorman shakes his head slightly, roiling the talc-cloud that was beginning to settle, and snorts, creating even more turbulence. Blinking, he turns aside to Stage Right, fixes on the staffer, and says, “thanks, I needed that.”


[This is a tip-o’-the-hat to some silly skit I saw on TV a looooong time ago, but for the life of me I can’t place from where or when. How long ago? For all I know, it could’ve been the second Nixon administration. If anybody else remembers anything like this bit, please help me out!]

Seriously, though, I occasionally watch a bit of the local/cable anchors, and I don’t think they use makeup at all, which is why they look so real and crappy at the same time, like the newsreaders in Tim Burton’s Batman, after The Joker reveals his dastardly plot…

Does it have something to do with the difference between recording on video and recording on film? WAG.

As TellMe noted, most people working on the local cable access shows have no idea what they’re doing. They don’t know how to design a proper lighting plot, so they just play with the dimmers until they find something that they think works. (Or, worse, they just turn everything on full power.)

They don’t have the time or money to build a nice set, and these days the national news programs all have fancy computer graphics on bluescreens in the background. The guy running the sound board does not know how to set levels properly or which kind of microphone to use for a given situation, and the guys running the cameras don’t know how to tighten their tripods or that you should zoom in to focus, or how to properly compose a two-shot. The director doesn’t know how to choose which camera to cut to, and the TD presses the wrong button half the time anyway.

There is usually very little planning or pre-written copy, and so people just wing it. There are also no commercial breaks during which you can get your shit together, either.

No – real news packages are shot on video and they look fine. (Granted, it still looks like video, but it doesn’t look like utter crap.)

Good production values involve equipment, which costs money. Most cable companies don’t want to shell out that kind of money so that the Hellenbach Elementary School PTA meeting looks like the NBC Nightly News, so they don’t. The equipment is old, or very basic, and does an okay job of putting the stuff on the air, but nothing more.

Also, public access is just that, public. These are not people who have any extensive training in how to use this stuff. They sort of know how to do it, and that’s it.

Robin

One channel on my cable system, SCOLA, broadcasts nightly newscasts from around the world. However, the video quality is awful, far worse than the quality of videotapes I’ve seen that have been converted from PAL or SECAM to NTSC or played back in a multi-standards VCR. The graphics between newscasts look far worse than what I’ve seen generated from an old Amiga 500. I’ve seen SCOLA in other cities, and it looks really, really bad everywhere.

I’ve seen home movies with better video and sound quality than the stuff broadcast on public access television. I’d say a lot of it is equipment; a public access organization is probably getting ancient hand-me-downs from schools and artists. Sound quality is usually pretty bad; hosting a show in a room with absolutely no sound-absorbing surfaces, people sitting to close to or far away from a microphone, and of course the trademark 60 cycle hum; a lot of it can be attributable to the lack of boom mikes, and mixing boards that are in desperate need of repair.

Then again, I’ve worked for cities that broadcast their Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and they employ full-time pros for production work; the quality is like what you might see for a local newscast or public-interest show in a medium-sized metropolitan area.

Well, I saw this routine on H.R. Puffenstuff once. Putting on a show, or something, and they had to let Witchey-poo play a part. So they had somebody hit her with a giant powderpuff every time she opened her mouth. Never saw it with real people, though.

Now you’ve all got me remembering a skit, or maybe a scene from a movie, where the news anchor kept turning to face a different camera - every time about two seconds after the producer switched cameras. So every time the camera changed, you’d see the side of the anchor’s head, and then see him turning to face the active camera. It was pretty funny, so of course they ran it into the ground… :wink: