For example, BRANDED CONTENT, SHORT FORM. Huh? And how about SHORT FORM, DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION? Or MULTIMEDIA FOR A SINGLE SHIFT? (Nothing for working a double?)
Chris Cashman, the host, kept telling the audience "this is important stuff, serious stuff, important work." Not sure if he was trying to convince the attendees or just him. I would love to see Steve Raible host next year or even Eric Johnson. They need a change there. Anyway, let's have a category for everything so that everybody can win, OK? Lots of AI videos/bits done tongue in cheek, but a little nervous-making.
A few highlights:
Biggest surprise: The Seattle Channel (a city government channel that was nearly defunded). This will send KING and KGW into tailspins, because they have won this over several recent years. Refreshing in an ideal world, but a stunner the big boys won't like.
Big category winner KGW Portland (especially reporter Kyle Iboshi). Oregon Public Broadcasting did very well, too. Montana broadcasters had a good night, winners both in Boseman and Helena to give small markets a shout out.
As usual KING5 Seattle won a bunch: Morning/Evening Newscasts; News Anchor, Joyce Taylor; Reporter Drew Mikkelsen; Meteorologist Leah Pezetti; Investigative Reporting; News Special and Team Coverage.
Other winners: Anchor/reporter Matthew Smith, KCPQ; Jim Dever, ex-host of KING's Evening program; KOMO, Spot News; Seattle Kraken broadcasts. KATU and KPTV won a couple from PDX.
Congrats, however, to all.
GAFFES: KGW's Laurel Porter name was up on the big ballroom screen as a writing nominee working at KOMO Seattle. Proofreader alert!
No audio on KHQ Spokane's only winning entry. No one from the station was there to accept anyway.
I believe a disqualified entry from KIRO was shown on the big screen Investigative Reporting category graphic shown to the audience. It went by very quickly, so I could be wrong.
BTW, Best Sports went to Neil Everett, ex of ESPN, who now works for NBA's Portland Trailblazers TV.
If the goal of the various regional Emmy Awards is to build morale among our hard-working local journalists, then mission accomplished. However, winning a regional Emmy is not the best barometer of the quality of the work.
ReplyDeleteThe regional Emmy system is deeply flawed, starting with disparities between well-funded and under-resourced news operations. Some stations can afford to pay for numerous submissions, while others submit little or nothing. This essentially turns the process into a version of "stuffing the ballot box." If TEGNA stations ever decided to stop funding submissions in the Pacific Northwest, the Northwest Emmys would face a massive revenue shortfall. Additionally, due primarily to the sheer volume of categories, not all nominations are given a proper review. Scores are sometimes influenced more by the station's longstanding reputation than by the actual content submitted—classic "halo effect" bias.
Deep down, everyone recognizes this, but the (4-hour) Emmy show must go on.
Totally correct assessment. It is a NATAS money grab with ridiculous entry fees and far too many cateories in hopes of generating additional entrants, including those from parts unknown in the media world. KING has always been award hungry as the legacy station in Seattle and the money budgeted is huge. I've seen those budgets when I was under the KING umbrella at NWCN. I have also judged Emmys and there is no question some judges are affected by reputation of the entrants and, generally, the judges watch as little as possible or required to score the entries. Often there is a sense of award by acclamation. KING does the same bit with Murrows. The 4th floor wall was littered with Murrow after Murrow to prove the newsroom's worth. Conspicuous consumption. I have an Emmy, won in 1998 for a story that I co-wrote as part a year-long documentary series. I prized it because back then it was very difficult to win one. There were fewer categories and you were up against top peers, not production companies, et al. In short, it's a racket. As one blogger wrote, "They give them away like candy."
ReplyDeleteI would imagine, the veteran anchor, Taylor has a virtual hardware display of Emmies and deservedly so.
ReplyDeleteSure, but that's a major award as news anchor. I am talking about categories that anyone with a camera and ring camera can enter as excellence.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to all of the winners of this year's regional Emmy awards. While KING and KGW won a lot as has been the case in recent years, it does seem like this year's contest has a broader range of winners, which is nice to see. While KING and KGW do a lot of journalism that is worthy of winning awards, which should be commended, it is good to see other outlets win some awards as well as their good work should not go unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteThere were 85, count 'em, 85 categories in the Northwest contest, with multiplle nominees and multiple, multiple, multiple names on some entries. Checks, please. Ridiculous attempt to provide participation awards. And gauge.
ReplyDeleteI did see that there were 85 categories, and agree that is far too many for a regional contest. Its honestly too many for a national contest as well. The number of categories should be reduced going forward to allow for a tighter show that truly showcases the absolute best of what our region's broadcast journalists can do.
DeleteAlso, a tighter limit on how many names can be put on an entry should be considered so that the awards only go to those who played a major role(s) in reporting, editing, producing, and/or researching the story being entered (in the case of a newscast, awards should go to those who anchored, directed, and produced it) and not those who only played very minor roles. Also, awards shouldn't go to station executives who put their name put on entries that they didn't have a direct hand in making.
Totally agree. But if they limit names they then automatically limit entry fees and limit dinner attendees....they go hand in hand. That's why it's a racket. If your name isn't on a nominated entry, woud you pay to attend a dinner and ceremony? At best, Montana, Idaho and Alaska should do a regional, WA and OR for the bigger markets (although Portland is considered a medium market for the awards (a major advantage for KING over the others in Seattle who barely ever enter against the juggernaut). Then maybe a category for non TV station categories. The system is flawed and tough to reverse course at this stage. Horse out of the barn.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat unfair to Portland's media outlets that they are considered a medium market and don't get to directly compete with Seattle's media outlets when they are the largest market in Oregon and the second largest in the Northwest. No wonder KING is able to win so many awards. They don't have the competition that they should. That being said, it is probably a bit of unfair advantage to Portland's media outlets that their direct competition is the likes of Spokane.
DeleteI also agree that it might be wise for Montana, Idaho, and Alaska to have their own regional awards contest so that the playing field can be leveled somewhat. Instead of competing with Seattle and Portland, their biggest competition would be Boise, and specifically KTVB.
As for whether you would pay to attend a dinner and a ceremony for a contest where your name isn't on a nominated entry, I don't think you necessarily would, unless you really wanted to support your friends and colleagues, which all journalists should. At minimum, news department and station management should attend, even if their names don't appear on nominated entries, to support their hard working news teams.