The Era Of Satellite News Gathering 243
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."
Radio too! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Differences between bidirectional, live, and fast (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Different vendors's products under stress: (Score:4, Informative)
- 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.)
Re:Yes.... you are absolutely correct (Score:5, Informative)
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.
Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. [emphasis mine]
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
© 2003 SierraTimes.com
SNG (Score:2, Informative)