Not a quick review: Netflix's "Shot in the Dark."

[Steve Timko]

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. 

[Steve Timko]

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.

[Adam Bowie]

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.

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

--

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 tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kevin M.]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:41 PM Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> 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 <steve...@gmail.com> 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 <steve...@gmail.com> 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 tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

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 tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Steve Timko]

Well, this is incredibly ironic you could post this question about encrypted frequencies today because it popped up today in my area. Read this story.

Link

The guy who was being chased knew about the first set of spike strips set for him, so they had the Nevada Highway Patrol discuss the second spike strip set up off the air.

Las Vegas police just went to encrypted frequencies. This was planned before the October mass shooting.

Part of the problem with going to encrypted frequencies is that other emergency providers can't monitor the frequency, or can't do it without the expense and hassle and getting encrypted radios. Firefighters and ambulances monitor police frequencies, for instance.

Many frequencies are public. You can check it out at https://www.broadcastify.com and listen in on some frequencies.

There are stringers in just about every market, but I'm not sure how many have full-blown companies.  Later on in "Shot in the Dark" they go to the funeral of a stringer in Santa Barbara, which is a tiny market.  Just a stringer, not a full blown company.

Thank you for agreeing with me about the ending.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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 tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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 tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Adam Bowie]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:

Part of the problem with going to encrypted frequencies is that other emergency providers can't monitor the frequency, or can't do it without the expense and hassle and getting encrypted radios. Firefighters and ambulances monitor police frequencies, for instance.

Many frequencies are public. You can check it out at https://www.broadcastify.com and listen in on some frequencies.

Reading up on this a little more, it sounds like there are a variety of digital systems, and it's basically a question of cost and roll-out. In the UK and many places beyond, most emergency services use TETRA services which I believe are encrypted by default. Other places, including the US are transitioning to something called Project 25 (APCO-25). It seems that Project 25 users can choose whether or not to use encryption. 

When I was a child I could hear police radio at the upper end of my FM radio dial! (Commercial radio had yet to be licenced those frequencies), and scanners in the UK could hear other broadcasts on UHF frequencies. But TETRA, which is now quite old technology, brought an end to that. Also systems tend to be bought in bulk across all emergency services. I imagine that it's a lot more complicated when you have dozens of individual agencies all choosing their own kit, and then need them to be able to cross-communicate. (For better or worse, UK ambulances are now transitioning to a 4G system, so as with mobile phones, they'll remain completely encrypted).

 

There are stringers in just about every market, but I'm not sure how many have full-blown companies.  Later on in "Shot in the Dark" they go to the funeral of a stringer in Santa Barbara, which is a tiny market.  Just a stringer, not a full blown company.

"Stringers" has always been a journalistic term to mean freelancers who might have loose affiliations with news providers. I think the idea that they're just gung-ho video self-ops racing around the streets of cities is only one very small part of the equation. In many parts of the world they're local journalists who might support their incomes by providing copy to international agencies. There tend to be specialist news agencies that deal in certain types of thing too. Paparazzi photographers, for example, tend to work for agencies who specialise in those kinds of photos. They'd be stringers too. 

I suppose I was surprised that in a news market as big as LA, with seemingly a decent number of local news shows to target, the stations themselves don't have bigger operations and just shoot some of this themselves. Or has it reached the point where they only have a couple of news trucks that mostly cover daylight stuff, and they just find it cheaper to buy in footage from these companies even though it'll be identical to footage their competitors have? That said, it does seem that stations can keep helicopters on standby, suggesting that if a "real" story emerges, they can be there.

I live in London, and there are only really two outlets for local TV news - BBC London and ITV London. I'm not aware that either uses much external footage beyond mobile phone footage. But then, you can't sit listening to police scanners all night and then race to the scene. You have to rely on the police or the public telling you!

I should say that there are plenty of UK tabloid TV shows that show police chases and follow the services to the scenes of accidents, but they're all in the documentary genre because footage is only released later. Sometimes this is because of UK laws on what you can show (suspects need to be prosecuted before you can see them unblurred), but mainly because of the time delay. Footage from police dashcams and helicopters won't be released by police unless they choose to at their preferred time. The only exceptions might be live situations where they're seeking public help in finding something.

 

Thank you for agreeing with me about the ending.

 Finally - about that ending. I have quite mixed - and conflicting - views. I suppose they were summed up in a later episode when another of guys sits and points his camera at a car broken down in the fast line, and just waits. He doesn't want to see anyone die, but he does want to get some kind of a crash. But a crash might cause someone to die. He says he's not leaving his lights flashing because it might distract drivers from the real issue in the fast lane. I appreciate all of that, and yet it does feel like someone pointing a camera at some ice somewhere and just filming people falling over.  Is there really nothing he could do? Maybe carry some kind of flashing warning lights or signs? These guys are often parked up near emergency situations, and I assume they don't want to be rear-ended by other drivers. Yes, the British guy in episode one was heroic, pulling the driver out without too much care for his own safety. 

I don't have any easy answers, but I found both sequences unsettling for similar reasons.

Adam