FAIR has produced two pilot versions of what we hope will soon be a regular weekly feature: FAIR TV.
Please take a look at the segments below and let us know what you think. And, as always, please spread the word.
About Peter HartActivism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.
It seems weird to watch a video which is someone reading something, especially when the video shows us what she's reading. It's quicker just to read.
Fair TV . Can you tell us what DISH channels? specially in the northeast, NH, VT?
While I applaud your project to produce a TV-ready broadcast, I think you're approaching the medium as if it were radio. Just listening to these clips is fine; but looking at them is a pretty static experience. You need to liven up the graphics, and perhaps most importantly, give us some visual bullet points as to the subject and main criticism points of your coverage. And, that guy needs better makeup.
I loved Peter Hart's and Janine Jackson's 5 min. reports! It's great seeing them in person after several years of hearing them on their wonderful weekly Counterspin program on Pacifica radio. DON'T gussy up their looks or add a bunch of visual "improvements". Both commentators have strong clear voices with expressive mannerisms. Very powerful commentaries. OK, sorry to gush. I told you I loved them!
Terrific! Where/how can I view it? E-mail?
Yes, they are fine and require no "gussying". The graphics are helpful in reinforcing the points being made.
1-When are you going "live"?
2-You need the FAIR logo and slogan at the beginning and end of each piece.
3-The backdrop looks like a high school or amateur blogger. Create a blurred collage of print and video stills.
4-Display the corporate logo of the media outlet you're discussing.
5-Utilize a better segway between stories: change camera, graphic, or backdrop.
6-I can't wait!
Well, now, these folks look like they just wandered in from working in the yard. A little formality might not be out of order.
And talking heads without much use of the visual is boring, boring, boring.
I can read faster than they can talk (thank goodness, for me), and I prefer to read my analysis unless it's about dancing bears or alien abductions.
A good start!
I am a huge fan of your radio broadcasts. So, I was thrilled to see that you are venturing into TV. Congratulations on this progression. But now for some sincere comments.
TV is a visual medium. How you utilize the visual elements of your program will either enhance or detract from the information you are presenting. I assume you want to be effective and get your information out to the largest audience possible.
You must to do more than simply read your radio broadcasts to a camera. Just as you have prepared your audio text for transmission, you need to team up with some directors and visual and graphic artists and photographers and prepare your visual stories..
What will be your set that we will see each week? A table and chairs, a desk, A map of the world, a globe, a media graphic? What colors will you employ on this set? What colors of clothing will you wear? Will you allow the cameras to move as you speak? Will you cut back and forth between cameras and other visual media? What music will your show use each week. Will it always be the same as the radio? Or now that you are on TV will you occasionally add new music tracks?
Think about what you want to present. It doesn't have to be fancy, but each image conveys a message. Do you want to appear professional, serious, quirky, ironic, youthful, outrageous, earnest or boring?
How do you want to dress? In business attire so you gain the respect that those clothes convey? Or more casual to show your audience you are one of them? Remember that you are competing with peoples preconceived prejudices so your appearance and dress style sets a tone for your show.
Please use make up. The camera and lights are harsh and unflatering, so why not make your self as appealing and pleasant to look at as possible. And how you fix your hair may not matter to you both, and will not matter to the politically conscious viewer, but if you want to reach out to the unconverted or those middle of the road Americans, how you look does matter to them. So please do what ever you can to not turn off people by not looking well groomed. This is not vanity, this is part of the struggle to reach people where they are and bring them to where you want them to go. If your very appearance is not appealing, then you have lost them from the start. I'm not asking you to become fake, but I am asking you both to put your best impressions forward.
Your message that you give each week is too important to allow distractions about your appearance to hinder your delivery. Viewers make judgments about whom they want to listen to and whom they want to watch. I want them to listen to and watch your show and hear what you have to say. So, please utilize all the tools available to you to reach your audience and keep them watching your program.
Get a graphics person to help you have numerous visuals to illustrate your stories. Charts, graphs, maps. photos, videos, can explain so much. The brain is excited by visual stimulation, so your task is to keep those brain cells firing. Also, when you mention the various news papers and networks, why not show those papers or those network logos or those networks headquarters. When you mention those all powerful talking head commentators, we should see photos and videos of them and see parts of their shows that you are speaking about. This is just basic stuff. But it sets you up as professional and someone to be taken seriously.
Your show can be so much more than a Charlie Rose who sits at a table each night and interviews the power brokers of this world. Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" has managed to build a visually stimulating TV program out of her radio show with frequent graphics and video clips. Even on her station breaks, she has visual montages with music that illustrate the commentaries of her show.
Your goal should be to make your show as visually engaging as it is intellectually stimulating. I recognize that this may seem like a huge task, but you are not alone. There are people coming out of film schools and communication schools and art schools who need experience. There are people who work in the TV industry, film industry and commercial and industrial film industry who are frustrated by their work restrictions and will work with you on the side. There are people who have retired from the industry, but who still have prodigious skills that can assist you.
You must build a team of directors, filmmakers, graphic artists, visual story tellers and artists around you to help you transform your radio commentary into a vibrant visual and audio experience.
I have faith in you and your talent. I wish you much success with your venture. We need your work on TV and broadcast over the internet.
Excruciatingly tedious. I'm getting pretty old, but I can still read on my own, thanks.
While I appreciate Dwight Williams' comments (and I say this with humility), it seems that many of his suggestions are what's wrong with the 'gussying up' of corporate media. The danger of incorporating too many of his comments is that FAIR may head down the wrong path of looking at itself in the mirror too much. (Think Carly Simon's "You're So Vain"….)
No makeup is great; real people should report on real issues. Attention shouldn't be drawn to hair, clothing, and dollying of reporters. That's the problem now in corporate funded media.
A brighter 'studio' draws and keeps viewers from thinking 'in the dark'; FAIR illuminates the mind and the intellectual senses, so go for a basic setting that is both light neutral, and yet seriously focused on the issues, and not on the aesthetics.
Please provide some visuals of text from newspapers and video clips; this helps the viewer to be familiarized with your issue. BUT please don't get crazy with the distracting graphics that the corporate funded media love to use to distract and dazzle.
Thanks FAIR. Go for the TV broadcast, and show the corporate sheeple how to do real news and journalism reporting!
I look forward to the day such newsbriefs are available to all! I guess I am just hungry to hear such commentaries, as I did not miss graphics and background at all. I am tired of news and commentaries I cannot trust.
I think it's about time that your type of show got on the air. It's a lot more like Amy Goodman's Democracy Now which unfortunate only plays to the cognescenti. Even in New York City and environs, most people never heard of WBAI or the Pacifica group, which is incredible given that they've beeb around for over 50 years!
You will need some really good pr work to get the viewers but what better time is it to have a new legitimate voice to combat the mainstream medias brainwash of the masses.
It's an exciting an opportunity to expand FAIR's audience by embracing the visual media for those that won't read or listen.
FAIR must consider its audience, however. If it is to be the broadest possible, then Dwight Williams' (et al) comments should be taken seriously, point by point. People will make a snap judgment and, as he said, one must meet people where they are for them to devote their attention. Although we may disagree with the smooth corporate presentation, and FAIR needn't go that far, appearances *do* matter in the visual medium. Most of the populace come with expectations, whether or not we agree with it. Continue to focus on the content, but a little makeup, touching up the set, and such don't hurt. Graphics are actually an opportunity to use the visual medium to its full. It can significantly augment the oral content, it should not be merely for appearance now that FAIR is in the visual medium.
It's a large undertaking, so hopefully the resources and willingness are there to make it work. It's also a great opportunity to expand FAIR's reach. Dwight's suggestions to make resources stretch are also good. There are journalists and visual artists young and old eager to contribute to a project like this.
Comment compared to what? The truth is somewhere between the visual dance of major media news and the austerity of what you presented for our critique. Dwight Williams suggestions are realistic if you intend to compete with E!-celebrity bites full on. Start plain and build incrementally emphasizing substance over style. The budget will determine a lot. But it's far easier to credit some moderate verbal presentation than a message drowned in optic flash.
I agree with others that there needs to be more going on visually. The Real News Network has done this pretty well. I salute your efforts to get FAIR TV off the ground. We need it. Please make the transition from radio to tv, then we can start tweeting it like crazy…..
It seems like a combination between the publication and the podcast, which right now are fine on their own. If you're going to go visual, then I feel you should introduce a reason to go visual. It's nice to see the faces of the fine folks at FAIR, but unless there's a reason to be visual, Extra! and CounterSpin work wonders on their own. However, if you're trying to reach a new audience, perhaps this may do the trick.
Interesting foray into the visual medium. Since, like the old adage that "opinions are like 'rectums' — everybody's' got one" (paraphrased), I'll throw mine in here too, though I know (after working for large corporations for many years) it won't make a bit of difference and is strictly a personal indulgence on my part (forgive me my weaknesses, oh Lord!).
Since you're trying to expand your audience (otherwise you wouldn't be bothering with this, obviously), and it's in a visual medium, you HAVE to meet some sort of basic minimum standard of TV professionalism as outlined by Dwight Williams and others above. This is especially true since you're trying to promote viewpoints that are NOT particularly popular (note: I agree with virtually all of FAIR's work and have been a supporter/subscriber for years, but I also realize that demographically I/we are in a distinct political minority). IF it were as simple as just standing up and telling people the American public the truth and that would result in their changing their minds/political behavior, it would've LONG ago happened AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS – - – Noam Chomsky for instance has been discussing unpopular truths for decades, but they don't gain traction with mainstream America. There are numerous Liberal/Left publications that get dutifully ignored by 90% of the US public. I'm not arguing what SHOULD be though, I'm arguing what IS. Unfortunately these video clips come off with the production values of a middle-school AV club effort and would gain about as much viewership, I fear. I believe that a media-savvy NGO like FAIR can do a LOT better without devolving into a 'slick' format. As FAIR has often intimated, we're in a media environment where STYLE trumps CONTENT, but that being said, your response can't be strictly 'content' and no-style, otherwise it'll be a non-starter.
I don't have cable TV and I will likely stay that way.
I only watch the few available on air broadcasts to see how they sell their lies. I'm more interested in the effect visual media has on its viewers: the efforts at persuasion, and the success of the media at hiding reality in plain sight. The clips you showed did, however, better make your points with the offending media.
I am a visual media hater; pictures and music usually distract from the voice and its message. Too much effort usually goes into selling the visual image, in my opinion. But then, I've hated television since way back in the 60's, and people usually hate me for sharing my opinion with them about the shows they live for.
It was nice to see your faces attached to the voices that are so familiar to me.
I love you just the way you are, but go for it.
Several Points…
Visual helps. Reading from paper. FAIR Style.
1) The added dimension of visual facilitates understanding better. There are several point involved in most of each of FAIR's stories. So the aid of visual contributes to helping my listening to the points.
2) It does get a bit distracting when the reporter looks down frequently to what they were reading…Perhaps one of the transparent cue cards near the camera could be of assist.
3) Maybe that intensifies the style FAIR presents of the witty sarcasm. I like the style as it is engaging. It makes me feel like I am with them on their side. I am not so sure how that goes over from someone 'on the fence', to 'win' people over. Just wondering?
PH & JJ: You're off to a good start, and as one who added broadcast to print exposure many years ago (under another name), I can assure you that you are both going to get better and better at it.
Excellent. I personally wouldn't change a thing…I like the straightforward approach and would find the embellishments advocated by some comments to be distracting. But either way, this is a great addition to FAIR.
More boring than Democracy Now(and that is saying something).Not in any way "FAIR" to the right side of the coin.Seems to me to be a lot of liberal double speak ,and spins.Every thought is straight out of the lib talking points room.Fair could not generate a conservative thought if you put a gun to their heads.Going through life with blinders on.Example……..Peter Hart points out that the clip of Obama saying" you didn't build that" was a hit piece.And that the minute anyone sees the entire statement in context, that they will see that.He seems blitheringly ignorant of the fact that when you hear the speech in its entirety….. that it is actually worse than the soundbite!Will he really let a certain female speak at the Dem convention who will trumpet the worst of this thought process?I can only hope so.Look he believes what we all heard in that speech.Case closed.
As for FAIR Tv……..you have a president who is a monumental failure.That alone should leave little room to talk of anything else.Yet I hear so little in that direction.FAIR……indeed!
Teleprompter.
I have watched one of the clips briefly, but as I saw in the comments above, seeing a person read some news that can be read online or can just be heard on a podcast serves little purpose. You definitely need to add a new dimension to make it worthwhile.
I just wanted to comment on the podcast format which always features very interesting interviews. I feel that Peter Hart & Janine Jackson come over as a bit too formal and at times even condescending. Every time they say the word "pundit" it feels like the word carries some negative meaning with it. In my opinion they should loosen up a little, they seem to take themselves a little too seriously. If FAIR wants to enlighten people about the way media works, they need to adapt a more friendly, respectful tone. It might just be the nature of the format, where either PH or JJ talk about some news and proceed to criticize it. In that case they should change it, because that tone they take gets annoying after a while.
On a side note, I thought Peter Hart was a woman at first from the sound of his voice.
I have to agree with the folks on many points; this was not TV this was Radio. This works fine for a Radio, and would be a great 'streaming' podcast to listen to, when you haven't the time to sit and read.
But the even a couple of pictures of the subject or something, the talking head distracts from the audible. I found it easier to scroll down and read comments while listening. The clip of Pres. Obama was really important, it finally put the actual event in proper context. It had made little sense when seeing the speech written, but when you hear that "pause" that tells you he is not talking about the businesses, but the infrastructure they use.
It would be nice if we could get 'visuals' on places you talk about to 'see the people' there, even if it is cell phone shots. I think we should that a simple cell phone can indeed be powerful 'e.g. the UC Davis Pepper spray incident'. From the time it happened to the time it was on world news was like 22 minutes?
Now that's the future of News.
Jon Stewart already does the video version of your work, and he does it better than you do above. Stick to print, where you are appreciated.