On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:41 PM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've finally caught a few episodes of this and I have some thoughts - > sometimes quite conflicting. > > First off is that I'm not altogether happy that the company run by the > three British guys, RMG News, is also the main producer of the series. To > me, that's a conflict of interest if we're supposed to be getting a truly > impartial view of the business. The fact that two other companies are part > of the production also suggests that while I don't doubt that there *is* > competition > between them all, it's not quite as it's always portrayed. Obviously this > is based on any number of Discovery-style constructed reality shows. > > To me this is high-end constructed reality. The production values are > high, although I would suggest that much of the passing shots and > establishing footage were shot at a completely different time to the > action. But I'd love to get a clear indication of the timelines of when > these events all occurred. It's purposefully not always entirely clear if > events took place on the same night as other events. > > By the way, I do understand where that Guardian reviewer was coming from. > If you watched this series, then it would seem that local news is solely > made up of car accidents and fires. Yes - they're spectacular - flames, and > lots of lights from first responders' vehicles, but it's not really clear > to me how much is truly news. I also understand it because in the UK you > never get anything like this - even with the fact that everyone has mobile > phones to capture incidents that take place near them. Yes - there are car > accidents, but rarely would you get footage unless there was a serious > number of vehicles or casualties. > > I'm curious about a couple of things though. Beyond LA, do many of these > stringer companies exist? As far as I'm aware, it's unheard of in the UK > but there's a reason for that I'll come to. > > Second, besides Santa Monica, why don't any of the emergency services > encrypt their communications? It's just not possible to listen in to UK > emergency service calls. I don't think it has been since the 80s. It's not > a question of having scanners with the right frequencies, but it's no more > possible than it is to listen to cellular communications. If those radio > frequencies were encrypted then these guys would really struggle. But I > assume that villains listen in to police radio traffic for their own > nefarious purposes too. So it really makes no sense operating in the clear. > I encountered a discussion about this elsewhere on this big series of tubes. In some states there are laws against encrypting first responder frequencies. In California there doesn’t seem to be a law against it, so some LEOs do, but there also don’t seem to be any laws against making or selling scanners that decrypt it. Mind you, this was a part of one thread unrelated to the topic I was reading about, so take everything I just wrote with a granule of sodium. For a while I followed a Facebook page that posted/tracked police activity where I lived, and they used a decrypting scanner, which the local fuzz was not happy about. I eventually unfollowed it, because it REALLY ticked off the cops and I’m just paranoid enough to not want to draw the ire of grumpy armed cops. > Finally, it's unclear to me how some of these guys aren't getting done for > speeding or running red lights! Also, apparently none of them can start a > car without screeching wheel spin. But then I think the soundtrack has been > "juiced" a little to sound more exciting. > > That all said, the end of that first episode was remarkable. > > > > Adam > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Steve Timko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So I know my review was so gripping that everyone went out and streamed >> the first episode as I suggested. But in case anyone is interested, >> Loudlabs and On Scene TV have video going out to the networks and to be >> shared to local markets of the catastrophic Los Angeles-area fires. So it's >> not all shootings and car crashes. >> >> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Steve Timko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I have mixed feelings about the new Netflix “Shot in the Dark” series >>> about television stringers in the Los Angeles market. It’s slickly produced >>> and expertly shot (for the most part) but it also seems a tad manufactured >>> at times. Like maybe the subjects are in bed with the show’s producers to >>> heighten drama. >>> >>> The best way to explain it is that it is a reality TV example of the >>> “Nightcrawler” movie starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Basically the three camps >>> are three competing television freelance operations. One is RMG News run by >>> British-born twin brothers. Another is Loudlabs run by Scott Lane. He is >>> the most paparazzi of the trio. They capture him passing traffic on the >>> right trying to get to a story quicker. Another time he runs a red light. >>> When one of his employees commits a journalistic felony and gets called out >>> on the news, Lane laughs it off. If he had been my employee and done that I >>> would have bitch slapped him to Barstow. The last is OnScene TV, the >>> largest, run by Zak Holman. Lane hates Holman, in part because Holman calls >>> him out on his recklessness. But Lane criticizes Holman as someone who is a >>> journalist because he’s a failed first responder and that criticism is a >>> direct hit. Holman has flashing lights in his car that he uses one time as >>> a civilian to slow down Los Angeles freeway traffic because one of his >>> drivers is photographing an incident on the road. And he’s currying favor >>> with cops and firefighters. >>> >>> They use all kinds of tricks to get great shots of the photographers. >>> They have some talented photographers getting some compelling video, often >>> expertly framing the freelancers. They also have cameras mounted on the >>> cars the freelancers drive. They use either drones or helicopters to get >>> video from above. And for me the coolest thing they do graphically is a map >>> that shows the locations of the freelancers and their destination so you >>> can see their routes. It’s clear it’s a race to get there first. >>> >>> I don’t want to give away too much, but definitely watch at least the >>> first episode for the world class, epic cliffhanger. Maybe one of the best >>> ever in episodic reality TV. Part of the reason the show resonates with me >>> is because it reflects my personal life. I’ve been a journalist for more >>> than 30 years and I’ve spent the last 18 months as an assignment editor at >>> a smaller market television station. One problem we’ve always faced in >>> journalism, and especially at the TV station, is picking which breaking >>> news things to cover. Scanner traffic is often wrong and major stories go >>> silent when the police go to tactical channels. Guessing which thing to >>> cover and getting there quickly is a constant theme in “Shot in the Dark.” >>> >>> This is a Guardian review of the show. >>> >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/nov/30/shot-in-the-dark-review-pure-undiluted-rubbernecking-feeding-on-human-misery >>> >>> This reviewer calls it voyeurism. I don’t feel like it’s voyeurism at >>> all. It feels like a job. I get no emotional satisfaction or pleasurable >>> reaction from watching the pain people suffer. The one time that felt most >>> voyeuristic was in 1990. I accompanied police on a prostitution sting. They >>> had a female police officer wearing a radio wire. I sat with two officers >>> about 200 feet away in an unmarked car and listened to men solicit her. I >>> felt so embarrassed for the men I let out involuntary groans and gasps. I >>> could not keep myself quiet. >>> >>> “Shot in the Dark” also has an energetic soundtrack to keep the showing. >>> But the soundtrack and quick cuts of cars zooming into the night started to >>> wear on me by about episode four. It became more of a gimmick and a >>> liability. I give the series a thumbs up because the story line picks up by >>> the last couple of episodes. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
