Narratives in Local Television News Edit

Research Article

Narratives in LocalTelevision NewsEditing

Keren Henderson1

AbstractThis study offers a method for analyzing the narrative content of television newsvideos. Very few scholars approach the study of visual narratives in television newsediting because the technique is highly specialized and not commonly articulated bypractitioners. However, cognitive experiments are supporting the importance ofunderstanding the way the brain processes video messages; in particular, those comingfrom television news. Based in norms and routines theory, this study combines anunprecedented method of content analysis with in-depth interviews of award-winninglocal news editors in order to reveal a contemporary state of narrative production intelevision news.

Keywordsvideo editing, local news, broadcast journalism, narratives, norms and routines

While an account is a recollection of facts, a narration is the process of telling a story

in such a way that the story itself takes on meaning outside of its details. People pro-

duce narratives as a way of categorizing and making sense of the society in which they

live; a way of taking personally relevant context from a set of otherwise disconnected

content. Narratives exist in both fiction and nonfiction stories and, as is relevant to this

study, narratives are also found in local television news. News, as a form of commu-

nication, serves two functions in society: (1) to transmit information and (2) to tell us

1 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Keren Henderson, Louisiana State University, Journalism Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

Email: [email protected]

Electronic News6(2) 67-80

ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1931243112450008

http://enx.sagepub.com

more about who we are as a society (Carey, 2009). This second function of news, the

ritual function of communication, is the focus of this study.

Tuchman (1978) describes television news narratives as, ‘‘a recently evolved for-

eign tongue we have all learned to translate but that few of us speak’’ (p. 107). Her

observation is a comment on the irony that news narratives are simple enough for

viewers to receive, while academics struggle with their analysis. The reason is two-

fold: First, scholars interested in news production are not always journalists them-

selves; fewer still are video editors. The understanding of the theoretical concepts

of communication (however deep they may run) do not educate academics about

which buttons editors push in order to make the videos look one way or another. Sec-

ond, video editors are not good at explaining what they do (Schaefer, 2001). Practi-

tioners learn their craft through the process of mentorship, one where terminology

and technique are not uniform across the field. In other words, while all news video

editors know how to produce news packages, they have little reason to think about

(and subsequently to articulate) their editing choices.

The disconnect described here between academics and journalists results in a pre-

ference among news narrative scholars to analyze news scripts rather than news video.

However, the significance of news video to the learning process and to memory reten-

tion is becoming clearer. In 1990, Tom Grimes published an article showing that,

when it comes to watching television, the mind is apt to retain visual over verbal infor-

mation. Furthermore, Annie Lang and her colleagues (Grabe, 2000; Lang, Potter, and

Grabe, 2003; Lang, Zhou, Schwartz, Bolls, & Potter, 2000) describe news memory

and retention as a process strongly correlated with the contemporary design of news

stories. There is a reason, then, to find a common language between scholars and prac-

titioners for the sake of better analyzing the meaning behind the visuals elements of

television news.

Norms and Routines

After a half-century of research, academics agree that two stages separate occurrences

from their presentation on television news programs: deciding what is news and decid-

ing how to package it. Leading scholars in this area of research (Fishman, 1982; Gans,

2004; Molotch & Lester, 1974; Tuchman, 1978) approach broadcast news from the

perspective that news is not ‘‘out there’’ to be discovered; rather, news is created

by journalists through a series of observable and predictable norms and routines. The

news, then, is not an objective representation of reality, but rather the product of news-

room decisions as to what the public needs to know and how they need to know it.

Through participant observation and content analysis, these scholars illustrate that

news routines determine which events are termed newsworthy and which events are

ignored. Moreover, these researchers recognize that routines determine which

news-making techniques are used and which are considered counterproductive. Video

editors, as photojournalists, are subject to their own unique set of norms and routines,

68 Electronic News 6(2)

selecting or rejecting, based on mentorship and experience, specific elements of the

news-making process.

As pertains to this study, two editing routines separate the production of accounts

from the production of narratives in television news. Those two routines are some-

times called ‘‘continuity editing’’ and ‘‘montage editing’’ (Zettl, 1999). An individual

editor’s preference for one over the other is very telling in terms of norms and routines

theory.

Continuity editing, like the telling of an account, explains the ‘‘who,’’ ‘‘what,’’

‘‘when,’’ ‘‘where,’’ ‘‘why,’’ and ‘‘how’’ of an event (Zettl, 1999). When we talk about

news as a ‘‘camera of record,’’ we refer to news footage edited through continuity

techniques (Monaco, 1977). News editors use continuity editing to both create the illu-

sion that the viewer is watching ‘‘reality’’ and to present facts. In other words, conti-

nuity editing has become the standard for transmitting information in television news.

Montage editing, on the other hand, sends messages to the viewer that can be both

intense and complex (Zettl, 1999). Using montage techniques, the editor illustrates

relationships between shots and sequences and, in doing so, creates an additional layer

to the package’s written and visual information.

Until now, there have been very few attempts to recognize which routines are pop-

ular in most television newsrooms. In 2009, Schaefer and Martinez published the only

longitudinal study comparing news video editing techniques from the late 1960s

through present day. Their research combined technical understanding of video edit-

ing techniques with an academic discussion of changes in newsroom routines. With

the help of Pierce’s semiotic theory and some film terminology, Schaefer and Marti-

nez recognized an increase in the use of montage editing techniques in television

news. The authors measured three features of television news: shot length, montage

techniques, and transitions. They recognized that shot lengths had significantly

decreased over time, speeding up the overall pacing of news stories. They also noticed

an increase in dissolves and wipes; something that they attributed to the availability of

newer editing technologies. Third, the authors observed that news editors are progres-

sively abandoning traditional realism and moving toward storytelling through video.

I argue that this study illuminated a shift from the transmission model toward the

ritual model of communication; the development of filmic, stylized stories.

Editing Narratives

For news editors, the smallest unit of measurement in narrative construction is the

sequence (Zettl, 1999). Sequences are shots grouped together to form meaning based

on the relationship between the shots. The whole sequence, then, becomes something

greater than the sum of its parts. It is through the construction of sequences, or what

Fiske and Hartley (2003) call ‘‘second-order signs,’’ that an editor can take shots of a

road sign or a car and, combined with complementary or conflicting shots, narrate

complex concepts such as poverty or danger. Fiske and Hartley explain that codes are,

at first, meaningless, but they gain significance over time through conventionality.

Henderson 69

Photojournalists know, for example, that shooting a subject from below will signify to

the viewer the importance of the subject. Conversely, taking the same shot from above

will signify the subject’s inferiority (Zettl, 1999). One can see how these codes were

initially meaningless but developed over years of learning to ‘‘read’’ television. In a

study of impeachment coverage, Baym (2004) observed that, by presenting Bill Clin-

ton through tight shots, news editors applied an emotional and potentially sympathetic

view of the president. Conversely, he found that the use of medium shots in the cov-

erage of Nixon’s impeachment proceedings 20 years earlier did not attach the same

emotion to the story (at least not in terms of photography codes). These codes are sig-

nificant to the study of visual news narratives, but they fall short in recognizing the

relationship between the shots in a package.

Research Questions

Although Schaefer and Martinez (2009) recognize a significant increase in the use of

montage editing techniques in news over a 40-year period, this study proposes that the

trend could be taking a turn. Narrative editing is both highly specialized and time-

consuming, two factors that are not attractive to an industry that suffered severe cut-

backs during the recent recession (PEW, 2011). In light of recent layoffs in television

news and the trend toward employing one-man-band or multimedia journalists (PEW,

2011), it is important to map changes in news content where possible. This study

recognizes which narratives techniques are employed by modern news editors, and

how heavily they rely on these techniques; investigating a relationship between the

state of the news industry in a given decade and its effect on news content. The pur-

pose is to make a connection between the increasingly profit-driven structure of the

news business and the likelihood that news workers are capable of creating narratives

(a process that takes time and money). That is why this study asks:

Research Question 1: Which storytelling techniques are observable in packages

edited by award-winning local television news editors?

Research Question 2: Is there a difference between the storytelling techniques used

by editors trained in different decades?

Method

This mixed methodological study of news narratives consists of in-depth interviews

with award-winning news editors and a content analysis of their self-determined best

work. Award-winning editors are the focus of this study because they shape the trends

in the industry; awards imply a need for those who do not win awards to mimic the

winners’ styles. In order to obtain award-winning candidates, I contacted the National

Press Photographers Association (NPPA), known for their annual storytelling journal-

ism competition. Mike Harrity, then chair of the NPPA, suggested three participants

for this study due to their diverse ages, training, and years of experience. The award-


winning editors were asked to mail in a ‘‘demo reel’’ of their best work on DVD. The

first 10 stories on each DVD were selected for analysis based on the understanding

that a demo reel is compiled in order of importance. The resulting 30 stories were ana-

lyzed for the presence or absence of each of narrative editing techniques.

Narrative Techniques

In order to analyze television news editing narratives, it is important to recognize the

kinds of sequences that are employed by news editors. This study borrows the follow-

ing definitions of narrative techniques in television news editing from Zettl’s Sight,

Sound, Motion (1999): (1) metric montage, (2) analytical montage, (3) idea associa-

tive montage, and (4) transitions.

Metric montage. Zettl defines metric montage as, ‘‘a rhythmic structuring device

. . . of a series of related or unrelated images that are flashed on the screen at more

or less equally spaced intervals’’ (p. 292). When each of the shots in a sequence is cut

progressively shorter, the scene is viewed as occurring faster. Metric montage, or

pacing, increases intensity by increasing the pace of the package and, conversely,

numbs the mood by slowing down the pace.

Analytical montage. Zettl separates analytical montage into two categories: sequen-

tial and sectional. Sequential analytical montage means editing a scene to show cause

and effect. Even though an editor may not show the actual event (such as a car acci-

dent), he or she can create a sequence of a car riding down the street, and another car

cutting it off. An editor can then show an effect sequence of the dented cars and the

rescue crew helping the injured. Sectional analytical montage, on the other hand, is

used to emphasize a moment within a sequential montage in order to add context to

the scene. Relating to the car accident example, imagine that, between the ‘‘cause’’

sequence and the ‘‘effect’’ sequence lies a third sequence cutting between Driver A

and Driver B’s reactions to the impending accident.

Idea-associative montage. Idea-associative montage is the connection of, ‘‘two see-

mingly disassociated images in order to create a third principal idea or concept’’ (p.

298). Zettl refers to this third idea or concept as a ‘‘tertium quid.’’ As with metric mon-

tage, Zettl breaks this technique down into two categories: comparison montage and

collision montage. Comparison montage, or cross-cutting, ‘‘compares similar themes

as expressed in dissimilar events’’ (p. 299). Comparison depicts a conflict or similarity

between two subjects by presenting two points in time within one sequence. This tech-

nique is similar to the literary concepts of simile or metaphor. Zettl uses the example

of a sequence cut between a hungry man and a hungry animal. Another example of this

technique is the cross-cutting of two interviews: If two people who were interviewed

individually give strikingly similar responses to the same question, an editor can break

up the responses by cutting back and forth between them. Even though each interview

Henderson 71

occurred at a different time (and possibly a different space), the two are now associ-

ated by this third concept of similarity. Collision montage is the same technique using

opposing imagery. In other words, rather than using shots of a hungry man and a hun-

gry animal, editors can alternate visuals of extreme wealth with those of extreme pov-

erty to suggest a third concept such as the unfair treatment of the lower class of a given

country. In literature, this is closest to the concept of juxtaposition.

Transitions. Transitions can also serve to add meaning to a sequence. While a

‘‘hard cut’’ means placing two shots next to one another, Zettl defines a ‘‘dissolve’’

as, ‘‘a gradual transition from shot to shot in which the two images temporarily over-

lap’’ (p. 258). The overlapping of images can result in a separate meaning than the

two shots alone, as it temporarily transposes one on top of the other. A ‘‘fade’’

occurs when, ‘‘the picture either goes gradually to black (fade-out) or appears gra-

dually on the screen from black (fade-in), signifying, much like a theater curtain, a

definite beginning or end of a sequence’’ (p. 260). Additionally, a ‘‘dip’’ is the pair-

ing of a fade-out and a fade-in. Fades and dips can represent transitions in time and

space as well as in narrative themes.

Content Analysis

Each of the videos in this study (n ¼ 30) was analyzed individually for the pres-

ence or absence of each storytelling technique defined above. Presence or absence

of technique was represented in an Excel spreadsheet with either a one or a zero.

Because there is no evidence to suggest that more of a particular technique is

somehow better, this study only used zeros and ones. Hard cuts were not included

as transitions because they are considered the work of account editing routines,

not of storytelling; to edit, by definition, is to cut. In many cases, I had to watch

the videos several times in order to decide whether or not a particular kind of

montage existed. The difference between sequential and sectional montage

required the greatest number of repeat views.

I asked an experienced video editor to analyze 10% of the packages (n ¼ 3)

that I coded. The coder has never worked as a news editor, but his understanding

of editing techniques qualified him to watch the videos with a critical eye. I

trained him through a face-to-face conversation about each of the four terms and

their subcategories. I used the same examples for each category as I have written

in this article. For experienced video editors in particular, storytelling codes com-

monly used in film are easily recognizable and require little explanation. To fur-

ther reduce confusion, the coder was provided a ‘‘cheat sheet’’ of definitions for

each of the terms to be coded based on the definitions above. He was asked to

watch each of the three videos as many times as he felt he needed to and then

place a one or a zero in each of the four possible categories for each story. A

Scott’s p calculation determined intercoder reliability at .83.


In-Depth Interviews

I conducted the interviews in Denver on May 10 and 11 of 2007. Each subject was

asked to fill out a consent form outlining that they would spend approximately 2 hr

discussing their professional history, editing philosophies, and perception of their role

in the news-making process. The interview protocol only served as a guide for the

questions asked. Each interview naturally veered off in the direction of each editor’s

interest and area of experience.

The Participants

When the initial study was conducted in 2007, Mike Harrity was the senior news

editor at KUSA-TV, Denver’s NBC affiliate, and top ranked station. Before his

departure from news in 2009, Harrity played an active role in the news editing busi-

ness for more than 20 years. He worked his way up to a management position at

KUSA and chaired the NPPA editing awards for 10 years. Harrity provides insight

into the current state of news editing. He has the benefit of 20 years of experience

from which he describes the development of the industry and offers predictions

about the future of television news.

Eric Kehe is the Director of Photography at KUSA-TV, and, though he sees himself

primarily as a photographer, is considered one of the top editors at the station, having

originally trained as an editor. Kehe, like Harrity, has also worked in television news

for more than two decades and offers similar insight to Harrity, only from the photo-

grapher’s perspective. Kehe travels to surrounding Colorado universities to lecture to

students about photojournalism techniques. He also lectures to his peers at NPPA

workshops.

Brian Weister is a former editor from KMGH-TV, a McGraw-Hill owned ABC

affiliate. Weister is the winner of two NPPA editor of the Year awards from both

2004 and 2005. Weister has since left the news business to work at High Noon—a

company of self-described ‘‘storytellers’’ (High Noon, 2012). Weister represents a

group of editors skilled at narrative construction who can explain why his colleagues

sometimes move out of news and into long-form storytelling project shops.

Joshua Shea is a star news editor at KCNC-TV as the 2007 winner of the NPPA title

of Editor of the Year. Shea brings the perspective of the next generation of news edi-

tors to this study. KCNC-TV is the only union shop in Denver, and Shea describes his

experience working there as well as his development as a storytelling photojournalist.

Table 1. Percentage of Storytelling Techniques in Award-Winning News Packages

Metric montage (%) 50Analytical montage (%) 53Idea-associative montage (%) 20Transitions (%) 37

Henderson 73

Denver

Conveniently, all four subjects work in Denver. While Denver was not chosen specif-

ically due to its market size or the fact that it boasts some of the top local news stations

in the nation (Davis, 2003), it is important to note that Denver does happen to have a

long-standing tradition of storytelling journalism (National Press Photographer’s

Association [NPPA], 2012). Although all of these local news editors currently work

in the same city, they are not all employed by the same company, so their editing

styles should not be attributed to one set of company training or policies. They are,

however, all voluntary members of the NPPA. This proved beneficial to the study

as it provided participants who have an appreciation for storytelling, so much so that

they voluntarily search for peer validation in the form of the NPPA Best of Photo-

journalism competition. The participants were eager to share their experiences, philo-

sophy, and wisdom as well as their expressed sense of social responsibility.

Results

Metric montage and analytical montage are the most popular storytelling techniques

used among these news editors with half of the stories containing at least one instance

of these techniques. Idea-associative montage, however, is notably less used with only

20% of the stories accounting for its presence (see Table 1).

When the efforts of all three editors are combined, storytelling appears to be alive

and well in the newsroom. However, once the stories are broken down by generation

of editor, the numbers look very different (see Table 2).

Again, it is clear that idea-associative montage is least used by the editors in this

study. However, the technique also declines in popularity with each passing genera-

tion to the point of nonexistence. The award-winning editor trained in recent years did

not use the technique in any of the work he deemed most representative of best prac-

tices. In fact, there is noticeable decline in montage editing techniques over all.

The ‘‘Nothing’’ category (see Table 3) refers to the percentage of individual stories

where no storytelling technique was observed whatsoever. The chart illuminates a

possible change in newsroom norms and routines. The editor trained in the 1980s pro-

vided 10 stories, all of which contained at least one storytelling technique. The editor

trained in the 1990s provided 20% fewer narrative works. And the editor trained in the

last ten years only used storytelling techniques in half of his packages.

Table 2. Percentage of Storytelling Techniques by Generation

1980s 1990s 2000s

Metric montage (%) 80 50 20Analytical montage (%) 90 40 30Idea-associative montage (%) 40 20 0Transitions (%) 60 40 10


While Schaefer (2001) recognized an increase in montage techniques since the

1960s, the trend could be taking a significant turn. Does this mean that contemporary

television news editors do bad work? Certainly not: all three of these men are award-

winning editors. What, then, explains the shift in content from narratives back to

accounts? One answer comes from the editors themselves.

Account Editing and Profit Motives

Satisfying the needs of shareholders and satisfying the needs of viewers are the func-

tions of two different sets of norms and routines. Account norms and routines ensure

that facts are provided accurately and efficiently in a manner suiting the financial

interests of the station. Narrative norms and routines present the human experience

to the viewer in both an entertaining and an informative way. However, as the editors

themselves describe in their interviews, creating packages that benefit the viewer in

this way tends to impose on the needs of the shareholders. These subjects express that,

when viewers and shareholders both require the attention of news makers, the viewers

often lose out.

In the 1990s, news stations began to transition from tape-to-tape technology to non-

linear equipment. For professionals, the switch meant the possibility of having more

time to complete their projects and work on individual stories. Harrity explains that it is,

‘‘ . . . infinitely more difficult to cut a really good story, a well told story, under deadline

in a tape-to-tape environment.’’ Nonlinear technology filled a need for increasing the

speed of production. The industry, however, illustrated its priorities to suit the share-

holders by pushing the capabilities of the technology to produce more of the same level

of work rather than increasing the quality of the original number of stories in a newscast.

The ability to produce more news not only resulted in more stories in an individual

newscast but also in more newscasts. Kehe notes that, ‘‘there’s a noon, a four, a five,

a six, a ten, and four hours in the morning from five until nine. That’s a lot of edi-

ting . . . not a whole lot of time to really develop your editing skills . . . You get really

fast, productive, efficient, but that doesn’t always mean you’re going to get better.’’

News managers expect editors to develop their speed in order to create more products,

which results in an increase in profits for their station, but editors are not necessarily

expected to improve the quality of their work for the sake of the viewers.

Table 3. Storytelling by Generation Including Absence of Technique

1980s 1990s 2000s

Metric montage (%) 70 50 20Analytical montage (%) 70 30 40Idea-associative montage (%) 50 20 0Transitions (%) 60 40 10Nothing (%) 0 20 50

Henderson 75

One example of the way storytelling is compromised for the sake of money is

cross-training. Nowadays, due in part to the ubiquity of production technology, and

the high demands on worker productivity, managers are cross-training their reporters,

producers, photographers, and even their anchors in editing. People who otherwise

may have no interest in learning how to edit are now expected to possess the basic

skills of continuity editing. According to Weister, the concern from the editors is that,

‘‘ . . . they’re going to make it a skill for so many people, but it’s not their primary skill

that I could see where . . . the quality might drop as far as editing goes.’’ Coinciden-

tally, Harrity trained his anchors to edit right before his interview for this study. He

‘‘sat there and watched them cut their own VOSOT. Were they great VOSOTS?

No. But appropriate for the air? Yes.’’

Narrative Editing and Social Responsibility

Kehe describes an editing career as a 10-year process. The first 5 years are spent hon-

ing continuity editing skills. The second phase is something that may be on the

decline:

. . . in a television station that embraces storytelling, the next five years you’re training

and focusing on your storytelling and that’s a whole other area and that’s why we call

them photojournalists . . . the best photojournalists are the photojournalists that can take

an assignment take a concept and turn it into a story . . .

When Kehe teaches storytelling techniques at colleges, NPPA workshops, or to his

colleagues, he does not focus on the techniques of continuity editing. Instead, he intro-

duces editors to a separate list of editing routines; one that is influenced by social

responsibility. It’s a concept that he calls ITEAM. Kehe believes that it is his role

to ‘‘team up’’ with the viewer in order to, ‘‘Inspire, Teach, Entertain, Enlighten, Make

a difference in the viewers’ lives. And that’s a standard that I try and hold to all of my

stories . . . I’m trying to evoke some sort of emotion and elicit some sort of response in

people, motivate them to make a change.’’ Kehe explains that if he were restricted to

the norms and routines of account editors, he would have quit the news business long

ago: ‘‘It’s why I can do the news. If I did it the other way, I couldn’t do it. If I just went

out, shot a bunch of pictures, and couldn’t put the stories in proper perspective, I

wouldn’t do this.’’ Kehe is not only motivated by the need to appease his bosses,

he also believes that, as a photojournalist, he serves a greater social purpose.

Kehe is able to incorporate these narrative norms and routines into his daily work

because he is in a position of authority at KUSA and ensures that storytelling is a pri-

ority for himself and his employees. Shea, on the other hand, who does not work in a

storytelling station like KUSA, sees his job as having a different priority: ‘‘To me I

look at it that the priority has to be the newscast. If I’m not making every VO every

VOSOT every tease look as good as it possibly can then we don’t have the other

stuff.’’ Account editing is Shea’s first priority because, as he sees it, VOs (voiceovers)


and VOSOTs (voiceovers/sound on tape) are the meat of a television news program.

Packages that will attract attention and are allotted extra time by the station, are what

Shea calls ‘‘special projects.’’ For Shea, these projects are only available if the regular

newscast keeps the station in business. He notes that, ‘‘ . . . some people are more con-

cerned about doing special projects and more than concerned about doing the show.’’

Shea does recognize, however, that growing up in Denver means, for him, an affection

for storytelling journalism. ‘‘Denver’s a weird market,’’ he says, ‘‘ . . . such an impor-

tance placed on pictures and storytelling and, even before I was aware of what that

stuff was, we kind of knew that, you know, this was done well.’’ While Shea values

the opinions of his NPPA colleagues, he prioritizes account editing norms and routines

and views storytelling, in the current state of news, as the content of special projects

that fall outside daily norms and routines.

Weister’s point of view is similar to that of Kehe. In fact, it was Kehe’s visit to

Weister’s class during his undergraduate program that inspired Weister to become

an award-winning editor: ‘‘I’d seen this NPPA stuff, I’d seen guys like [Kehe] and

I’d seen their work and seen these NPPA tapes . . . and I said to myself that’s what I

want to do.’’ Weister describes an environment in which his desire to compete in the

NPPA awards meant shooting and editing on his own time. In other words, the work

he was capable of producing on the clock was less likely to meet Kehe’s ITEAM stan-

dards. Weister’s personal priority was his craft, but, at work, his responsibility was,

‘‘ . . . to stay profitable, make sure everybody keeps their jobs. Is that why I do it?

No. That’s why TV stations are in business. I do it, I mean I did it, because it was

my only joy in an otherwise boring job of cutting VOs and VOSOTs all day.’’ Weister

felt he had to adopt account norms and routines where he worked. The only opportu-

nity he had to tell stories was on his own time. He developed his craft as much as he

could for his personal sense of satisfaction and then he left the business. ‘‘Really after

the first time I won the award . . . I did as much as I ever wanted to do . . . I decided to

leave the business because the challenge was gone and there was no more motivation

and the 90% of the time that I spent cutting VOs and VOSOTs and re-tracking

packages finally overpowered the 10% of the time I got to cut stories.’’ Weister won

the NPPA editor of the year award for 2 consecutive years and then left the news busi-

ness to work for a company that produces longer form projects such as documentaries.

His is a crucial example of the downside of a system that prefers shareholders over

viewers: eventually, those editors who wish to engage in narrative editing norms and

routines can become disenchanted with the entire system and move on to other indus-

tries where they may find greater support for their art.

The Price of Quality

According to the four participants, it is very rare to find a station nowadays that pro-

motes storytelling. Some stations, once known for their storytelling photojournalists,

have now transitioned away from narratives, placing priority on continuity norms and

routines. In the case of KSTP in Minneapolis, Weister recalls, the station employed a

Henderson 77

new news director whose priority it was to focus on turning a profit. As a result, most

if not all of the editors and photographers either quit or were replaced. Time is money,

and storytelling simply takes more time than creating accounts. Weister’s Silver

Gloves package, included in this study, required several visits to the boxing club in

order to establish a relationship and a comfort level with the participants, as well as

seven hours of shooting on the day he captured the footage. Some editors recognize

the value of narrative editing for the benefit of the viewers. The resistance coming

from some news managers, however, is indicative of an industry bound by financial

obligation to shareholders over its social obligation to the viewers and this resistance

is creating workplace tension.

Discussion

Account editing norms and routines produce passable, but not necessarily memorable

news packages. Effects research (Lang et al., 2003) as well as agreement from indus-

try professionals points to the significance of storytelling as a method for increasing

understanding of information from news packages. Advertising revenue, however, is

dependent upon viewer eyeballs, and not upon understanding or subsequent action.

The problem is that storytelling is time consuming and, therefore, expensive. At least,

it is more expensive than training editors to create accounts.

While there is no guarantee that narratives move people to act politically more than

do accounts, there is research to support that narratives are more likely to be paid

attention to and remembered. Recognizing this distinction could even prove profitable

for television news stations. All stations have the same accounts, but not the same nar-

ratives. Storytelling could be perceived as financially profitable by marketing each

station as a unique product of originally produced narratives. Kehe supports this argu-

ments when he says, ‘‘ . . . it’s gotta be different from all the other stories out there that

the other stations are telling. That’s why you can’t just simply regurgitate a bunch of

facts.’’ There are many people who, ‘‘know how to push buttons,’’ Weister explains,

‘‘and have absolutely no idea how to tell stories.’’ Editors who come up in what may

be only few remaining storytelling news stations know how to get the viewer’s atten-

tion while still providing useful information.

Future Considerations

This is the first time that news visuals have been studied this way. There are, therefore,

many avenues down which this research can lead. First, this study needs to be repeated

with a much larger sample in order to determine more conclusively whether current

business models are causing a significant decrease in narrative video editing tech-

niques. It would then be interesting to compare the use of narrative editing techniques

across countries using a political economy lens. If narrative norms and routines are

stifled by American, advertising-based systems, perhaps this is not the case in systems

that do not depend on advertisers. News production in public broadcasting stations,


where programming is viewer-supported, may provide alternative results to the strug-

gles of privately owned television news stations.

Conclusion

The interviews discussed in this study reveal daily expectations placed by managers

upon television news editors. As these interviews support, narrative news-editing

products lie outside the conventional norms and routines that ultimately support the

needs of shareholders to produce the cheapest, most efficient show possible. Mediocre

editing affects everyone: viewers miss out on the rich social narratives that television

news is supposed to provide; voters are less likely to remember and, therefore, depend

on the political information received from television news; and shareholders risk pro-

viding a product that is nearly identical to those of other stations. Of course, the fate of

television news does not rest solely upon the editors’ shoulders. News is a team effort

and narratives are constructed by a combination of writers, photographers, and editors.

Kehe, however, does note the following: ‘‘Stories will live and die in the edit

bay . . . You can have great stories, you can have great moments, you can have great

execution, great photography, great reporting out in the field, but when that ball’s

coming in, the editor’s got to hit the homerun.’’

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-

tion of this article.

References

Baym, G. (2004). Packaging reality: Structures of form in US network news coverage of Water-

gate and the Clinton impeachment. Journalism, 5, 279–299.

Carey, J. W. (2009) Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Davis, E. (2003). Mile-high news war heats up as KCNC raises its profile. Media Week, 13, 10.

Fishman, M. (1982). News and nonevents: Making the visible invisible. In J. S. Ettema, & D.C.

Whitney (Eds.), Individuals in Mass Media Organizations (pp.219–240). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Fiske, J., & Hartley, J. (2003). Reading television. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gans, H. J. (2004). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News,

Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Grabe, M.E. (2000). Narratives of guilt: Television news magazine coverage of the O.J. Simp-

son criminal trial. Howard Journal of Communications, 11, 35–48.

Henderson 79

Grimes, T. (1990). Encoding TV news messages into memory. Journalism Quarterly, 67,

757–766.

High Noon Entertainment. (2012). What we do. Retrieved from http://www.highnoonentertain-

ment.com/what.php

Lang, A., Potter, D., & Grabe, M. E. (2003). Making news memorable: Applying theory to the

production of local television news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47,

113–123.

Lang, A., Zhou, S., Schwartz, N., Bolls, P. D., & Potter, R. F. (2000). The effects of edits on

arousal, attention and memory for television messages: When an edit is an edit can an edit

be too much? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 94–109.

Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purposive behavior: On the strategic uses of routine

events, accidents, and scandals. American Sociological Review, 39(1), 101–12.

Monaco, J. (1977). How to read a film. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

National Press Photographer’s Association (2012). Mission Statement. Retrieved from http://

www.nppa.org/about_us/

PEW Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2011). The state of the news media: An annual

report on American journalism. Retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/local-tv-

essay

Schaefer, R. J. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of network news editing strategies from 1969 to

1997. Washington, DC: AEJMC.

Schaefer, R. J., & Martinez III, T. J. (2009). Trends in network news editing strategies from

1969 through 2005. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 347–364.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Zettl, H. (1999). Sight sound motion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bio

Keren Henderson is a former video editor and local television news producer. Today she is a

doctoral student at LSU’s Manship School of Mass Communication. Her research interests lie in

the intersection between the art of making news and the business of making news.


Documents

Narratives in Local Television News Edit