Slashdot Mirror
The Era Of Satellite News Gathering
swimgeek writes "The TV Technology for covering news as it happens is changing. This article specifically talks about the transition from ENG (Electronic News Gathering) to SNG (Satellite News Gathering). The American TV networks are close to spending $100 million for this transition, anticipating a possible war in Iraq."
PRESIDENT BUSH AGREES TO MORE INSPECTORS (AP) Washington DC 4:00 PM (EST),
President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq.
The President has announced that as of today, he is agreeing to additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq. We will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq. The additional inspectors will include:
- 24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
- 15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
- 15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division
- More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1 all-terrain vehicles"
- Additional U.S. Army personnel, as needed for inspections
- A variety of U.S. Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and other "surveillance" activities.
- A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections
- United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines
- An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Recon Marines, Delta Force, and other:
- Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi "hide-aways"
- MOAB and Daisy-Cutter bunker access devices
- Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise.
_The President stated: "With these additional resources, the inspections should be completed in a few weeks (not months -- not years)."
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
...the crappy videophone reporting feeds
This is the modern equivalent of the old 1940s movies where twenty reporters would see a man shot, then all rush out to the same three telephone booths and all try to pile into the same one, closing the door on each other in the process while they were screaming "Operator, get me the Times!"
ENG has definitely changed in the past decade - Gulf War I was the first to really have on-site video showing missiles launching and landing, and in Gulf War II: Die Harder, it'll be a necessity for any station that wants viewers - and we'll have several reporters in the gulf with satellite ISDN and satellite phones for on-location sound bites.
In terms of cost, we're not that big - not a national network, just 6 stations (with a few nationally syndicated programs) - but we anticipate spending upwards of $15k on equipment and at least $5k for phone/satellite bills.
Thing is, if you see CNN showing missiles launching and landing and your local news station with just a still photograph of Baghdad, which one will you watch?
-T
N0ne-news is a perfect word to describe news on channels such as CNN or FOX. They are passive, neutral. The avoid anything that might get the public's attention to the actual freakin' news in the world. They are ROT. Here are some of the stories you are likely to see ON NATIONAL NEWS 1) Laci Peterson lost for 2 months now. Had her husband Scott axed her? 2) Girl missing for 9 months found with a hobo and a prostitute. Whoo Whoo. 3) The latest from the newest rap band 4) The latest lamest movie 5) Weird psycho who set woods on fire sentenced for half of her life. 6) Latest psycho 50 year old soldier who feels like going to Iraq for the 3rd time " 'cause he's bored " 7) Crazy Wacko-Jacko sleeps with another 3-year-old. What you are NOT EVER GOING to see on these news 1) Actual news, as opposed to weird shit that sounds like it got pulled out of the "Enquirer" 2) News that explain current American and World events, as opposed to those that go something along the lines of " Disarm Iraq before carpet bombing me" 3) News that don't involve seedy "patriots" who are trying to get USA into a full-fledged 3rd world war. 4) News that have ANY FREAKIN' RELEVANCE to the lives of Americans. 5) Newscasters that are patriotic, as opposed to dancing to the flute of the gov't.
Think of all of those fancy moon rockets, which were produced on top of all the reasearch German Military engineers did. Even the safety glass in your car was invented for gas masks long before it was in a car.
When the next great leap in technology takes forward, it will be related either to (a)people killing each other or (b) people looking at each other naked.
During the last Gulf War (1991?) Saddam Hussein kept up with what was happening by watching CNN. Understanding the power of satellite transmissions, countries like Iran, which keep a tight lid on what's in the news, have yanked satellite dishes from people, (also, as they claim, western TV corrupts the morals. Ha! Leaders ought to know...)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If You're Happy and You Know It, Bomb Iraq
by John Robbins
(to the tune of "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands")
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think somebody dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression," bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's proof enough for me,
If they're not there, they must be,
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
I've consulted on a few systems like this before. This article conflates a few different flavors of real-time broadcasting via bird.
The traditional mode uses bidirectional communciation, where the anchor can ask questions of the on-location talent. This has the advantage of being immediate (mostly). However, due to the latency of the encode and transmission, there is always a noticeable delay. These systems tend to use standards-based videoconferencing codecs like H.263. Bang for the bit isn't very good, so the quality is poor over most connections.
The next is real-time unidirectional, like a standard internet live broadcast. The video is transmitted in real-time, but the encoder uses a buffer in order to control data rate better. There can be a 15-20 second delay between something happening at it being seen on television. More modern or even proprietary formats/codecs like MPEG-4, QuickTime, and Windows Media 9 can be used. Thus, quality will be better than the bidirectional mode.
The next is "fast" where a file is compressed locally, and uploaded as a file. Most of the examples from the article of this type, encoding with tools like Movie Maker or Cleaner. The plus of this is that you can use as many bits as you want, so quality can be great, if you can afford the increased upload time. Also, since it uses TCP/IP, there isn't a risk of data corruption from dropped packets. This is fine for anything that isn't breaking news - expect at least an hour or so delay.
For video broadcast, ideally interlaced encoding would be used, but it doesn't sound like it is in these examples. Squeeze certainly can't handle interlaced output for QuickTime, although it can for MPEG-4. Getting the optimum settings for encoding is my area of specialty.
Still, only a few decades ago, the nightly news was produced by guys with film cameras shooting on actual film, and then rushing to get the film developed in time for broadcast. It's amazing how quickly things change.
Ten years from now, upload will probably be built into the cameras - no laptop needed, unless editing locally.
My video compression blog
Ok, so:
- NBC is using Apple G4 w/Final Cut Pro and Discreet Cleaner.
- CBS is using Windows PCs w/Avid (editing centers), Adobe Premiere (producers & photojournalists close to action), or MovieMaker 2 (for dumbkopfs?).
- CNN and Fox aren't talking, and ABC's tech wasn't mentioned.
So lets see who flakes out and compare quality and timeliness. B-)
(Note that we'll probably be able to find out what CNN, Fox, and ABC used after the fact, once the info won't give their competitors an advantage.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Will read it on the net from a foreign news source just like I would anyways, anything else is so slanted and pre-digested as to be worthless for news anyways.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
IMO, this is a point worth talking about. One side effect of technology has often been the erosion of jobs. In some cases, it's been as simple as machines reducing the need for laborers. This is a different case. The technology ("desktop video," for instance) seems to offer more options and flexibility to each reporter. The indirect effect, however, is that the overall product suffers. A reporter puts together his own piece of video. This is cheaper than paying a video producer, but the work is likely of lower quality. Untrained, the reporter cannot equally utilize the software; and more importantly, he lacks the seasoned wisdom of the experienced professional in making judgments -- which angle to use, which clips to cut, which order to sequence, etc. (Not being a professional myself, I don't know precisely how many variables there are. Anyone else want to weigh in?)
Ask any elder newspaperman, and he'll likely tell you his first complaint about today's journalists: "They can't fucking write." Last Wednesday, the New York Times website's front-page photo was captioned, "Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister, told reporters today that a draft resolution on Iraq that it supports along with the U.S. may not be put to a vote to avoid a French veto." No, it's not incomprehensible (contrasted with some examples), but how the hell did that dreck get onto the front page?
Spell-check software has replaced practicing editors, in many newsrooms. A month or so ago, MSNBC ran an article about Cardinal Law's decision to step down, and it mentioned some Boston politicians who had visited Rome to offer their support. One of the names in the article? FBI "Ten Most Wanted" fugitive Whitey Bulger. Obviously, the writer meant to name brother Billy Bulger, a former president of the Massachusetts Senate. That mistake never would have made it past an experienced, practicing editor. But a spell-checker is indifferent to glaring factual errors, and text entry into HTML is a simple task. So writers end up looking like buffoons.
"Specialization" was one of the first trends in industrial society. When technology becomes more accessible, "specialists" are no longer needed. And more often than not, this results in (1) more people able to produce the work, and (2) far fewer people able to produce the work at an expert level.
Pros vs. Cons: Is it better to have more voices in the mix, or for the expert voices not to be drowned out? Is it better to practice reporting and video-editing and HTML now, to be competent at all three later...or is it better to be the best damn reporter, later, who admittedly can't tell RealPlayer from Napster? I'd tell my reporters to leave the video to the engineers, and to concentrate on reporting. When you get untrained amateurs trying to compete with professionals, you end up with Ain't It Cool News.
crib
Please don't read my journal
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of .
this correctly. We are going to ignore the United
Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that
the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to
wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war
The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be
taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to
guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is
too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I
getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is
to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then
we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy,
as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a
little thing like democracy as they define it. Also,
in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at
home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves.
We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's
failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are
sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make
the point that might does not make right, as Saddam
Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting
the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us
oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.
We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his
own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in
the world, fail to understand that, then we have no
choice but to ignore them."-
by PETER FREUNDLICH