Headlamp Pictures Blog

Below is an invaluable tool for anyone seeking to write a pitch document for a grant, private investor, foundation or broadcaster. I’ve been referring to it for several years and re-read every six months or so. I’d add to the discussion several key points:

1) Describe (early in your treatment) what you want to accomplish with the project – is it a call to action?: Do you hope to get people to start a garden, cherish their kids, write their congressman, discuss your story with their friends, boycott the mall? Or is it a personal exploration? By exploring your sexuality, probing your family’s past, or creating animated fantasy worlds you hope to inspire others to reflect on the universal stories we share. Even if your project is a “straightforward” history doc or science show – try and define what reactions you are hoping it will stimulate in your audience. This will help define your entire project.

2)Consider your print format: find ways to bullet or break up your key points into quickly readable bites (you never know if you’ll be pitching this in person and your audience chooses to grab your paper and scan it while you talk.) Nothing is less appetizing than a solid mass of text with narrow margins and few paragraphs – no matter how well written.

3) Be sure to consider the ways that your project will stand out from others under consideration. What storytelling innovation are you bringing? Do you have a niche audience? Do you have 5000 followers on Facebook? Is there a video game or app attached to the project? Will you be screening on rooftops? Today, more than ever, funders are looking for innovation.

WRITING A BETTER ITVS TREATMENT

“If a story is in you, it has got to come out.”
- William Faulkner

TREATMENT
In the treatment section of the ITVS proposal we ask you to communicate your passion and to explain how you envision translating your story from page to screen – taking into account structure, theme, style, format, voice and point-of-view. What do these words really mean? Here, members of the programming staff offer notes on writing an effective treatment. Remember, these are only suggestions; your treatment will undoubtedly be unique – tailored to the specific demands of your story.

PASSION
When writing the treatment, don’t be afraid to infuse your words with passion. Your excitement and sense of urgency should be contagious.

STRUCTURE
Like the frame of a house, or a human skeleton, structure holds up all the parts of a story, supporting and organizing the elements into a coherent and interrelated dramatic whole. Structure determines how the story will unfold dramatically, how it will build – moving through moments of tension and conflict – from beginning to middle to end. Structure is the road a reader takes through the dramatic terrain of the program.Article continues…

This Week on EXTRA

June 3rd, 2010 @ 8:30pm

LAKE PLACID FILM FORUM

The Lake Placid Film Forum is celebrating 10-years, with special guests including actors Hal Holbrook, Parker Posey, and authors William Kennedy and Jay Parini. The festival host screenings of 2 locally produced films, The Summers of Walter Hacks by Vermont filmmaker George Woodard; and Skatopia: 88 Acres of Anarchy by filmmakers Colin Powers and Laurie House from Essex, New York.
For information on events and screenings: www.lakeplacidfilmforum.com

SKATOPIA

We’ll talk with filmmaker Laurie House and Brewce Martin, who is the force behind the outrageous skateboard park in rural Appalacia.

• www.skatopiathemovie.com

DOUBLE FEATURE

Our film critic Rick Kisonak has his own mini-film-festival with a double feature of 2 of the summer blockbusters: Robin Hood and Macgruber.

• www.7dvt.com

The following farewell email went out last Friday to the staff of Channel 13, New York’s PBS station. It’s a scorcher.

From Sam Topperoff:

Farewell Address May 21, 2010

Farewells are inevitable. This is mine.

I’ve been here, mostly at WLIW but a bit at WNET as a producer, writer, director for twenty-one years, even though most of you wouldn’t know who I am. I’m the tall old man who ambles through the halls usually deep in thought, or trying to seem so. During two decades at PBS I’ve done some good work and, like most of us I suspect, some stuff I’d like to have a chance to do over.

During the past two years, many, too many, farewell e-mails have come to me in this building. Their tone has bothered me: It was invariably polite, cheerful, brave and tentatively hopeful. Since they were from people who had been fired, young and even middle-aged professionals, it would have been foolish for them to reveal their anger or their pain, and certainly not in their interests to burn any professional bridges when they said goodbye here. I’m free to do exactly that. I’m very old and have put aside enough money while I unburdened amble out the door to 33rd Street . So let me light a small fire in my bridge-burning farewell.

What’s happened at Channels 13 and 21 under the new management has been simply awful, comically grotesque, if indeed so many lives hadn’t been affected. It is the painful result of equal parts ineptitude, insensitivity, and arrogance of gross proportions. If the previous Emperor was a patrician windbag, this ambitious Emperor and his Ministers are bereft of any clothes. They are clever, and that’s about it. The suspenders hold up nothing, certainly not a hopeful future for our public television stations in New York . Many of us, of course, know this, but it feels wonderful to actually hear myself say it aloud.

Who among us could not have “saved” the company through extreme austerity and taking away the jobs of so many good and loyal workers? True leadership would have led us through hard times and transformed the company at the same time. It is one thing to “spin” a web on the stage at Loew’s and then get bailed out by wealthy board members, quite another to come up with brilliant and humane solutions to very difficult problems, but that is what remarkable people with true vision do in institutions under siege. Notice, of all the cut-backs that were offered, none was for reduction of executive compensation to save a few jobs. Do I expect too much? Probably, but forgive me, I’m old and may be slipping.

The fact is I’m worried about the future of the stations to which I’ve devoted my last twenty years; certainly there’s no reason for confidence based on recent management decisions. I remember being stunned at a Trustees Meeting a while ago when Mr. Shapiro compared the NET.ORG he envisioned to the New York Yankees, and 450 W33rd Street to Yankee Stadium, “Home of Champions.” Really. You can’t make this stuff up. (Does that make the Upper West Studio our new, very expensive Yankee Stadium? And where does that leave Mets fans?) Staying with the sports metaphor, he began a recent memo, “Television is a team sport….” Well, if so, on what team does a manager not know the names of each and every one of his fellow team members, or have to hire an outside consulting firm to find out what his teammates really think. Leadership? Really? I guess this is teamwork in the ultra-contemporary sense, and as I said, I’m aged and hopelessly old-school.

The most galling offense and the saddest part of the story is how bleak the future looks for truly “Public” television in this city. On my commutes to work on the E and F lines and occasionally on the Number 7 train, I’d ask people if they watched PBS. Almost no one does. They said there was very little on the air that spoke to their lives. The New York public is not merely the “Upper” East and West sides. It is these “Others” too, millions of them. And during those rare times we do program for this other New York , we do it embarrassingly, in stilted, patronizing “other” fashion. In spite of my left-wing bona fides and my high falutin’ Doctoral degree, I see our general programming for the wider public as elitist and offensive in the extreme. (Not many of us, you realize, can afford those good seats at “The Home of Champions.”) But of course, when stations run on very rich people’s and Corporate money, how could it be otherwise? And when the corporation is directed by those very clever and very ambitious fellows whose careers will float them to good places no matter what, what else could we reasonably expect?

But there is a second station here-Channel 21. How easy it would have been to grow a vast, truly public audience with it. And how inexpensively. Unless of course, we don’t see or care about that audience; unless the “Public” mission is directed by guys who take limos and cabs and never ride on the subway like most New Yorkers. Public television indeed.

So as I walk away I look back over my shoulder at some good work, some wonderful times, and some very fine colleagues. But also in the darkness behind me I see a fire lighting the sky. A bridge is burning. It looks beautiful. There is great contentment in knowing truth…and even greater contentment in saying truth.

See you on YouTube.

Good night and good luck,

Sam Toperoff

I really didn’t mean for these to appear in alphabetical order, but here’s a teaser for fellow student Mark Barroso’s film A Puppet Intervention. When I read about it I thought I knew what I’d see (seen lots of activist puppet stuff living in Philly, Eugene, Berkeley). These have to be seen to be appreciated. Obviously a nice light touch with the filmmaking and some cool verite moments.

“A Puppet Intervention” movie trailer from Mark Barroso on Vimeo.

I usually try to shorten reposted blogs, but this Gwen Ifill/Jay Rosen dialogue has really caught my interest. I’m convinced that public media needs to be looking at itself HARDER and with more real concern than we are. Because the tidal wave is about to wash over us… (for more background on the Ifill/Rosen story click on the “The Nobility is Annoyed” link near the bottom)

Cutting edge… 1962

Yesterday, while I was sitting at my kitchen table typing out my angry screed about Gwen Ifill, I was also listening to NPR, as I do every morning.

NPR happened to be running their annual beg-a-thon, their fundraising drive, which reminded me that Public Radio and PBS, the PUBLIC Broadcasting Corporation, are paid for by us, the listeners, or viewers. That is, PBS is ‘our’ network.  Viacom may belong to Sumner Redstone and NBC may soon belong to Comcast, but PBS belongs to us.  As Ronald Reagan said, “I paid for that microphone”.

This is particularly annoying when it comes to Ms. Ifill and the pure arrogance of PBS.

Initially irritated with Ms. Ifill and her cavalier treatment of Prof. Jay Rosen, I posted a response on her PBS’s website, on which she writes a blog.  I posted a response because the blog calls for comments. And even if responses are limited to 500 characters (think of this as a kind of super-twitter, I suppose), I was rather astonished that Ms. Ifill did not deign to publish my response.  I was so astonished,  I posted again. In fact, I posted five times.

Nothing.

Now, what responses did Ms. Ifill choose to post?

Here they are:

thank you Gwen the lone voice whispering reason in the wilderness

and

Thank you for your good job of hosting and presenting the views of the reporters on washington week. It is one of my favorite media presentations. I am not one who is pleased with the divergence from “Cronkite” news to opinion dominated media programs. I applaud the program and your hosting of it. I will continue to be a faithful viewer.

or this one:

Double thank you for reasoned, focused, in-depth reporting and analysis. Thank you for not letting us know your own opinions, and thank you for giving me the information I need to make up my own mind. Thank you for being you. We love you for your generosity of spirit and for being professional in your work. And lastly, thank God for PBS which allows us to get NEWS and not opinions! What in the world would we do without you.

You see. And all this time I thought Ms. Ifill was working for “Public” broadcasting.
She is not.

She is working for Pravada. Or so she seems to believe.  Perhaps she has confused ‘public’ broadcasting with ‘The People’s Broadcasting’ as in ‘The People’s Democratic Republic of China Broadcasting’.

Now, here is the interesting thing about ‘Public’ Broadcasting.

When it was founded in the 1960s, (thank you Ed Murrow), the technology of television and video was so expensive and so complex that it cost millions (even a lot then!) to put someone on the air and push that image through the em spectrum into millions of homes. So PBS gave voice to those who could not get onto NBC or ABC or CBS (as that was all there was).  It was a good idea for 1962.

But that was a long time ago.

The technology has changed.

Today, the Public uploads 23 hours of video to YouTube every minute.

The Public posts 240 million blogs on the web.

The Public has something to say.

Perhaps in the 21st century Public Broadcasting should be reflective of what the Public is talking about.  Perhaps Public Broadcasting should put itself front and center of the new technologies that are liberating millions of voices. Perhaps Public Broadcasting could be about becoming a publisher and editor for those millions of voices and giving them a larger and more focused platform than YouTube does, as opposed to becoming a highly controlled vehicle for Ms. Ifill to express her opinions and bathe herself in praise.

The Public has a voice and an opinion and wants to be heard. Freed of the constraints of the need to sell commercial time and appeal to the largest possible audience, perhaps Public Broadcasting could place itself on the cutting edge of the obvious revolution that is happening before our eyes in public discourse and become the pinnacle of that vibrant discussion.

This, I think, we would all be more than happy to pay for.

Instead, what is our money buying us?

Gwen Ifill… that ‘one voice whispering in the wilderness’.

Come on.

Lone Voice?

Wilderness?

Related posts:

1. The Nobility Is Annoyed Oh no, Ms Ifill… PBS’ Gwen Ifill is annoyed….
2. Al Atwitter tell me something…. I was on the Curtis Sliwa…
3. Hitler & Twitter Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer…. (25) New technologies…
4. Should News Take Place in the Public Place? Everyone has a story to tell… The Knight Foundation…
5. The BBC’s “Digital Revolution” Think ‘documentary filmmaker’ and you conjure up images of the…

Lobby group wants to make docs a priority for PSBs

by Kelly Anderson

At the recent Hot Docs festival, MercuryMedia CEO Tim Sparke took the opportunity to announce the launch of the Documentary Distributors’ Association, a group that aims to lobby public service broadcasters to consider airing more documentaries.

Sparke says the idea behind the Documentary Distributor’ Association came from MercuryMedia chairman and former ITV director of television Simon Shaps. “He felt it was something that the industry really needed,” says Sparke. Shaps will be chairman of the DDA, while Sparke’s role right now is to get the word out and get the first 10 distributor members on board.

The main goal is to approach public service broadcasters to get docs back on their schedules. “It’s about documentary fighting – and I use that word guardedly – for an enhanced position within television schedules and on other platforms,” says Sparke. “There’s no doubt in my mind that television is still the preeminent place for telling people about what’s going on in the world and documentary is the single most important tool [for] telling people that.”

CTD…

About

Mission
Guided by your aspirations, WSKG serves to inspire with the highest quality educational programming, explore the arts, culture and heritage of the region and beyond, engage in thoughtful consideration of news and issues of importance, and entertain with the very best in multimedia programming.

Vision
WSKG: striving to be your trusted partner, enriching the lives of the people and communities we serve.

Values
At WSKG we strongly value:

· Diversity: in opinion, thought and culture;
· Creativity and Innovation: in thinking, programming, and content development;
· Integrity: in how we conduct our business, in the programming we create;
· Courage: to be different, accept failure, to take a stand;
· Transparency: to open the activities of the station to public inquiry;
· Accountability: in all our actions;
· Open Mindedness: in how we approach issues and opinions;
· Responsiveness: to community interests, needs and new ideas.

These values help us to clearly define our mission as an organization serving our community.

WSKG Goals

Content and Services:
· Goal 1: Increase relevance, significance and impact of content and services.
· Goal 2: Develop partnerships to address community interests and needs.
· Goal 3: Explore new and innovative content platforms and services.

Financial:
· Goal 1: Diversify revenue portfolio.
· Goal 2: Increase funding for production of content.
· Goal 3: Build Operating Reserves.

Organizational:
· Goal 1: Create an organization culture that engages the community in our daily work and responds to its needs.
· Goal 2: Develop a culture of fundraising throughout WSKG.
· Goal 3: Develop and implement business policies and procedures.

Brand:
. Goal 1: Develop a distinctive, relevant and consistent brand that creates a shared pride with our communities.

 

Thanks @AmyWoo and the Twitter Chat group #pubmedia for the tipoff to go read this statement.

1 comments:

Colin Powers said…

Like John, I’m interested to see how the dialogue develops on some of your provocative ideas. Anyone involved in the PBS system who doesn’t feel the pain of investing heavily in distribution technology with ever-shrinking lifespans is in denial or in the dark. And no one wants to do away with pledge drives more than those of us who have to go on air and conduct them.

A content driven model is hugely desirable, but I need to understand just how the funding flow would change.

I’ll describe the situation I know best and maybe you can help us find ways to repair or replace it… we need the ideas!

Our station has more filmmakers, journalists, editors, videographers and educators creating local content and providing hands-on educational outreach to the community than it does administrators, technicians or management. I’m not sure how much leaner we could be as a pure local content provider with a lighter technical burden. We’d still need a studio, edit bays, field equipment, engineers to maintain them and some sort of master control room to insert the local programs into the stream you imagine we’d feed to the commercial tower. Plus, we’d have to sacrifice our multicast channels that our audience has decided they really like. We would save on transmitter and other transmission costs.

Unfortunately the content creation side of media is expensive… just what the newspapers have discovered – and they don’t record in high-def!

I suppose we could transition to some system whereby national content fed via a national television feed and local content was strictly available via web, but I see two issues with this: First local content would hit that digital divide – back to the “people who need PBS the most” point. Second, local stations tailor their programming to suit the needs of their community – this would go. It would be Nova, American Experience, History Detectives nationwide at the same time every week. Convenient for branding and promotion, but not very reflective of regional tastes. Our station runs local content in prime time 3 or more nights week – much more on weekends and daytime.

Also, even a web-based local public media outlet requires the same facilities, equipment and personnel that I outlined above – especially to deliver professional content that will draw eyeballs in a cluttered media environment.

Finally, this discussion (and others on the web) have focused heavily on programming content and journalism, but few have addressed the value of station-based education departments that provide tens of thousands of hours of early childhood literacy, media literacy and teacher professional development training to school children and school districts throughout the country. Your pledge dollars support these activities, too. Where do those resources go in the FPBS?

April 14, 2010 11:50 PM

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Here is my response to the provocative site PBS revolution and the thoughtful post by John Proffitt posted yesterday.