A major facet of news gathering is the live airing of various types of press conferences and interviews, whether conducted in the field or in a studio, with the actors who make the news, eyewitnesses giving their testimonials, and analysts who strive to understand and explain current events. These subjects are known in industry jargon as talking heads. The most notable of these, those seen and heard most often on Radio-Canada Television, include the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Quebec, the President of the United States, the US Secretary of State or Defense Secretary, the UN Secretary General, the Pope.
Television as a medium is largely dependent on images; radio is an audio-only medium. This explains the difficulty of presenting talking heads, whose speech need only be heard, not seen. This has led to the growing practice of using visuals to accompany the remarks of newsmakers, witnesses or analysts.
For example, during a press conference with the minister of health, a network runs footage of a hospital emergency room, in anticipation that the minister will be discussing this topic.
Recourse to this technique is more frequent when the talking head is speaking from behind a podium, or interviewed in a studio, and the background is not deemed visually engaging.
There is no rule stating that, when broadcasting this type of event, the presentation should be limited to a static shot of the talking head in question; one can be visually engaging simply by cutting away and showing the speaker from another angle. A news report about the speech for later broadcast typically will include excerpts from the talking heads speech, interspersed with a montage of relevant images bringing context to the interviewees words. But increasingly, the excerpts used are becoming shorter (the infamous sound bite), so the speaker is recorded in a static medium close-up for the entire duration of the briefing. Other images are then added, under an off-screen narrators voice (the reporters or the hosts). There is disagreement about the merits of this approach to editing, derided by some observers as video wallpaper.
What I regret most is the rising trend toward the use of visuals during live speeches or briefings. For some reason, producers seem incapable of holding on a shot of a speakers face for more than 15 seconds before deciding the screen needs to be filled with other footage.
The technique was used on numerous occasions during coverage of the Iraq conflict, when briefings were accompanied by footage that had no explicit link to the speakers remarkswhich were themselves meaningful. The footage usually consisted of strong images that seemed to have no purpose other than to grab viewers attention.
The technique is all the more suspect, in my eyes, when the visuals accompanying the speaker are run in a loop, with no mention made of when they were shot (i.e., whether it is file footage).
Journalistic Standards and Practices
The code of ethics of the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices do not address this issue directly, but some standards and principles provide avenues for reflection:
Credibility is dependent [. . .] on qualities such as accuracy and fairness in reporting and presentation . . .. (JSP, p. 45)
Accuracy and integrity can be compromised by abuse of the technology of radio and television, which offers a wide variety of visual and sound effects, to modify what is being broadcast. (JSP, p. 62)
In my opinion, there are cases where this practice should be avoided; others, where it should be restricted; and others still, where it might be deemed acceptable.
Cases where the practice should be avoided
This practice should be avoided during the live broadcast of remarks by a major newsmaker (e.g., Chrtien, Bush).
There are at least three arguments in support of such avoidance:
- The accompanying visuals are not germane to the speakers remarks. It necessarily distorts, for better or worse, the speakers words, and hinders viewers ability to concentrate on the message proper. While this technique may have little impact when applied to a talking head from another part of the world, the consequences if it is done with a Canadian speaker may range from denunciation to legal action.
- The accompanying visuals are the result of a gamble, which may backfire. It necessarily leaves the impression that the broadcaster has manipulated the truth: the choice of footage is a crap shoot that may or may not pay off. There is no time for viewers to digest the speakers comments before the images are added to the shot; this is soft editorial judgment. Viewers may very well be inclined to doubt the credibility of what they are seeingand hearing.
- The accompanying visuals devalue the speakers remarks. Though it may not be visually engaging, it should be enough to focus on the image of a speaker; if his or her words are deemed worthy of broadcast, they alone should suffice. The recourse to other images implies the opposite (is there a perception that viewers are too stupid to understand?). Attention is drawn to the pictures, to the detriment of the words.
This practice is acceptable, however, if the footage is part of the press conference itself or if the speaker is asked to comment on projected images.
Borderline cases
I also think the Corporation should restrict the practice when broadcasting live eyewitness accounts or live commentary by analysts brought in to provide context, to the extent that:
- there has been no prior agreement between broadcaster and interviewee;
- the use of specific images is not explicitly requested by the interviewee;
- the interviewer/host has not expressly asked an interviewee to comment on images shown on screen; or
- there is no direct connection between the images and the comments heard.
Inappropriate use of visuals is insulting to the interviewees comments and character.
Acceptable cases
Obviously, background images that are part of the real setting for a live press conference (e.g., the US President speaking from Ground Zero) may be acceptable, depending on individual cases and the judgment of the producer in framing the shots.
Events occurring simultaneously in different places may also constitute legitimate reason to juxtapose two live pictures in a split-screen shot.
Recommendation
A picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand pictures are worthless. Common sense dictates that it would not be wise to show visuals of poor people during a live address by Pope John Paul ll or Prime Minister Jean Chrtien on the subject of poverty. Indeed one would have been surprised to see similar techniques employed, say, for the leadership debate held during the most recent Quebec election campaign: physical appearance (including clothing), body language, facial expressions and gestures are far more revealing than superficial stock footage.
So why is the practice tolerated when it comes to war coverage? War is not a videogame; it is deadly reality. This trend is helping to push news reporting into the realm of entertainment and spectacle.
For these reasons, I am recommending that the Corporation examine the possibility of introducing a new standard governing the use of visuals during live briefings.
