Neil Shapiro, President WNET….
I have a soft spot in my heart for WNET/13, the PBS station in NY (though licensed in Newark, NJ technically).
I had my first TV job at WNET and they allowed me to move from PA to producer in about a year. I won something like 11 local Emmys at WNET in the 5 years I was there. They left me alone.
So it was with a very heavy heart that I read an interview with Neil Shapiro, the President of WNET/13.
So depressing.
Neil Shapiro’s interview, posted on BEET.TV as “VideoJournalism Will Succeed Online…” naturally got my immediate attention.
But look at what he says:
Neal Shapiro: Well we have a brand new show called World Focus. It’s our international news show. And since we started this show from scratch, we said how we do it the most effective way we can. So instead of a huge satellite farm of dishes all over the world, we do almost everything FTP. So the advantage is that we get all our stories every day literally are from computer to computer, edited in the computer. So instead…so our news operation: there’s not a sea of edit rooms, there’s not a huge satellite master control, it’s all done online. What’s great about it is the viewers can’t tell, and I think we as media producers have to start looking at what we do and saying why are we doing this way and if honestly the audience can’t tell, we ought to do it in the most effective manner there is. And in this case that’s using online much more than we have been.
Oye!
Neil!
“We get our stories every day from computer to computer….”
Neil… this was a big deal maybe 10 years ago…
maybe
We’ve been running two TV stations in partnership with Verizon where all the stories are done by VJs on their laptops working at home. We don’t even have offices. And this is for us already 2 year old.
Neil. Wake up!
Soon I expect you to say “we have this thing called the ‘phone’ where we can talk to people all over the world in real time! No more need for telegrams!!”
“no huge Satellite master control….”
Oye…
Neil. Give me back my umbrella. My contribution to PBS is obviously a complete waste of time. I might as well buy stock in GM.
The worst part is where he says, “what is great is that the viewers can’t tell”.
Yeah.
We may have all the cutting edge technology in the world (one can only guess, but my guess is they’re using desktop PCs and some really clunky software, not to mention gigantic cameras… but again, I am only guessing….).. and they’re delighted that they’re able to use all this cutting edge gear to REPRODUCE something that looks like it was made with 1972 technology.
You know….’real television’.
I can’t blame Neil too much.
After all, he came out of Dateline NBC. Not exactly Google, is it?
But poor PBS.
If there was any place that COULD have put itself on the cutting edge of new media technology it was PBS.
But they can’t
apparently.
so sad
So very sad.
10 Comments
prw June 16, 2009
Public broadcasters are in trouble, but not because of technology. They are in trouble because they are making I what think are bad programming decisions in order to cater, esp. at the local level, to funder, and in a misguided attempt to “compete” with cable.
I get two local PBS stations via cable. On just built a brand new HD studio to do the same kind of local talking heads panels they’ve always done — a dull “call the Dr. show” and an even duller local business show, and Sunday night Polka. The local documentaries they produce are softball all the way; engineered not to offend. They do very little in the way of any actual reporting or investigation on current local conditions of any kind. The other station, located in the state capitol, does one public affairs show , again carefully “balanced” so as not to annoy the powers that be and an “Our Town” show showcasing local small-town attractions — which ends up being pans across the inside of B&Bs and soda parlors. At pledge time they dump their regular programming for canned fund raiser segments showcasing mostly music and self improvement that otherwise they never show — all to make the case for donations to support their programming!?
Without some kind of editorial vision no amount of new technology is going to help — the two, although sometimes linked, are not the same.
prw June 16, 2009
Public broadcasters are in trouble, but not because of technology. They are in trouble because they are making I what think are bad programming decisions in order to cater, esp. at the local level, to funder, and in a misguided attempt to “compete” with cable.
I get two local PBS stations via cable. On just built a brand new HD studio to do the same kind of local talking heads panels they’ve always done — a dull “call the Dr. show” and an even duller local business show, and Sunday night Polka. The local documentaries they produce are softball all the way; engineered not to offend. They do very little in the way of any actual reporting or investigation on current local conditions of any kind. The other station, located in the state capitol, does one public affairs show , again carefully “balanced” so as not to annoy the powers that be and an “Our Town” show showcasing local small-town attractions — which ends up being pans across the inside of B&Bs and soda parlors. At pledge time they dump there regular programming for canned fund raiser segments showcasing mostly music and self improvement that otherwise they never show — all to make the case for donations to support their programming!?
Without some kind of editorial vision no amount of new technology is going to help — the two, although sometimes linked, are not the same.
Michael Rosenblum June 13, 2009
History belongs to those who write it.
pencilgod June 13, 2009
Just you keep rewriting history an one day you may be blogged about with classic paintings 🙂
Michael Rosenblum June 13, 2009
Ah, there I can’t agree.
I took them into new a technology way before they were ‘ready’ to go. The VJ method is now an established way of working (if not the only way of working) in most TV stations and certainly in every online venture and newspaper in the world.
Would not call that a failure. And for changing a global paradigm, I think $5 million was cheap. I know a lot of people who get paid a lot more for doing a whole lot less.
Just look at Jonathan Ross, for starters.
pencilgod June 12, 2009
By your definition the BBC are free. They spent $5million on your VJ training scam and what did it get them?
Honestly… not a lot.
barbara raab June 11, 2009
Michael,
Just to be clear: I don’t have any horse in the PBS race whatsoever. But I think it’s a little simplistic to say they’re freed from commercial restraints. I mean, they are in the most narrow sense, but they’re not freed from corporate/foundation support, and donor support … none of which should have anything to do with whether they adopt new technologies, of course… and I share your desire for the whole entire world to be more bold in every endeavor … but I just think it’s not necessarily true that the late adopters — even laggards, if you want to call them that — are “toast.” They may not be your cup of tea, they may not be mine (and yes, there are all kinds of PBS stations that do more cutting edge stuff, including my personal favorite, LPB, Louisiana Public Broadcasting), but I fear that your blog post suggests that any institution that didn’t get on the new technology train 10 years ago may as well fold up its tent … and I am just not sure that’s true… Although, I suppose we shall see!
Michael Rosenblum June 11, 2009
Hi Barbara
Freed of the constraints of the need to sell advertising, a place like PBS should be on the cutting edge of new technologies as well as new applications for television and it’s merging with online communities, mobile phones, the web and so on.
They should be fearless in trying new things.
Instead, they are about as fearless as my grandmother, and about as technically sophisticated.
What is the point in having a media institution that is free of commercial restraints if they are more fearful than NBC?
Please. If I want a watered down NBC, I don’t have to look too far. And that is what Neil is delivering.
Get brave man. Get some balls. Go for broke.
You have nothing to lose – quite literally.
Deke June 12, 2009
Michael,
Yes, PBS is free of the constraints of selling advertising but they are NOT free of the obligation to monetize their operations. They just use a different system than commercial broadcasters.
Their sibling (NPR) has taken a leadership role implementing new forms of digital integration and reporting but they too have to make the numbers add up at the end of the day.
No one in media is getting away with a subsidized free ride. That said, PBS could certainly try to be more innovative. I’m not sure I need to see yet another program with T.J. Lubinsky recycling greatest hits music of someone’s life.
barbara raab June 11, 2009
Hi Michael,
I’m not sure I get your point here. Okay, let’s say you’re right that WNET/PBS/Neal are “late adopters” of cheaper, more nimble technology; but why does being late make them — or any other operation — “toast”? Are you saying, better never than ever? Oy. Discuss.