Sun News: You Get What You Pay For

I was one who, when I first heard that the Sun News Network was coming, was hopeful that we would finally get a quality news service that would start to balance out the extreme leftist bias in the media. If there could be a service that would rival the CBC and CTV in quality of programming while giving a different perspective that Canadians could grasp, it would no doubt be a wonderful thing.

It has been a couple of days since Sun News Network launch. And while it's great to see Ezra Levant and Charles Adler with their own TV news shows and it's nice to see a non-leftist news source out there, I really have no choice but to say it...

It looks truly and utterly awful.

Sorry, but it does.

It looks like it was done on the cheap using lighting technicians, cameramen, editors, segment producers, sound engineers, makeup artists and facilities designers of the cheapest order.

Let's take a look at one segment as an example. Here is a segment called "America: From Makers to Takers" from the Caldwell Account. Now, it's a great discussion topic. But the presentation is so utterly horrible that one has to wonder who was in charge in making it.

1. The cameras they are using are obviously not of the highest quality. That or the videographers just don't know how to set them up properly.
2. Theo Caldwell's makeup is terrible. It's patchy and he has circles under his eyes. This may seem petty but let's be realistic. Looks are everything in modern television. And you can't have hosts that look like they just walked in from the street.
3. The lighting in the studio has most certainly been just thrown up. No thought process went into it and I would be willing to bet that there are standard room style florescent ceiling bulbs on above as well. This basically sucks the contrast of the host out so that he becomes washed out and nothing but another element to a room full of equally important backdrops.
4. The camera is positioned in a downward angle on Theo (it's looking down at him). Anybody who knows anything about camera angles knows that a downward angle is used to denote a lack of power and authority. It's the very reason why whenever you see iconic images of people of power or you see product commercials where a person is being presented as decisive and powerful and self-assured, the camera is always, always angled upwards. This is one of the most basic principles of photography and videography that I have a hard time believing that the person on the camera isn't doing it on purpose.
5. The camera has also obviously been placed at a far distance away from Theo with the lens zoomed in. You don't do that if you want the person to look anything but small. A person's appearance is all dependent upon a camera's position. If you don't believe me, take a picture of a person at a distance with your camera zoomed in and then walk close to the person and take another picture such that the person fills the same amount of the screen. You'll see that the closer you get, the larger and more rigid your features are.
6. Theo sounds like a boy. Why? Because the audio engineers have done nothing to his voice. Nothing! They have not equalized it so that his voice is thicker and appears deeper. Instead, it sounds tinny and weak. Once again, this is basic audio engineering that reduces his appearance as authoritative, powerful and captivating.
7. At 0:06, there is a video clip from a manufacturing plant. No problem except that the video is on pause for 3 seconds before it gets going. On pause! This is as amateur hour as one can get. If it's video, you leave it running from start to finish. If it's a still, you leave it as a still. But you don't start a video segment with it in pause.
8. At 1:04, the camera moves to the right for no purpose and then back to the left to stop at 1:05. It then sits there for 2 seconds before it starts to move to the left again to position Theo on the right hand side of the screen. For no reason! What is with that?!?! It's ridiculous.
9. At 3:10, the camera shifts up so that Theo stays in the frame. This is one of the reasons why a camera should be placed at a low angle: when the camera is low and facing up, a person moving back and forth, up and down will always stay in frame because they will actually look like they are getting every so slightly closer and ever so slightly farther away from the camera. Once again, basic videography.
10. At 5:07, the camera moves slightly back to the right and stops then moves slightly down and stops so that it is basically back to where it was at the very beginning of the segment.
11. At 5:27, the camera once again has to shift around to keep Theo in frame.
12. At 5:42, it switches to a second camera on Ezra Levant. And I couldn't believe what I saw. Behind the opaque backdrop behind and to the right of him (just over the SunNews logo) you can see that the light is flickering. Why? Because they're using dying lightbulbs in their backlights! It's insane and looks just downright awful.

Now, some might say I'm just nitpicking. Nonsense. If a news organization wants to paint itself as refreshing, new and competitive, it has to at least get the basics down. It has to look as good if not better than its competition.

Let's compare it to the network it was being linked to, Fox News.

Here is a Bill O'Reilly segment called "Donald Trump Closer to Running for President" that is a straight angle on the host and has segments with a guest just like the above video.

Notice how O'Reilly looks larger on camera and seems more authoritative. It's because the camera is closer to him physically, is zoomed in further and isn't looking down on him.

Notice how his features are more defined. That's because with him being closer, the camera's angle on his features draws certain things forward (nose, lips, forehead) while pushing other things back (ears, hair).

Notice that he stands out from the background. That's because he is being lit more than the background thus contrasting him against it rather than having him washed out with it.

Notice how little the camera has to move to keep him in view. When a camera is positioned properly (straight on or from below) the host's movements aren't as drastic.

Notice how deep O'Reilly's voice is. This is because the person at the soundboard has actually taken the time to mix him properly.

Notice when Trump joins the segment. The image is stable and consistent in colour and tone because cheap backlights aren't being used and overhead florescent lights aren't being used.

As well, when the front camera is on, both are on the edge of the screen but closer together. This creates dramatic tension because it adds the sense of combativeness like two titans facing off.

Notice that O'Reilly is off to the side of the screen only when there is something that is to take up the other side such as notes and quotations. By having more than just a face on the screen, it creates more to grab the eye.

Now, this is just a cursory evaluation of one Sun News segment and I didn't even dissect it all. But having watched a few Sun News segments I have to say that there isn't much of a difference between any of them. Honestly, you get what you pay for. And I imagine that whoever they hired to design, produce and craft this channel, it was as cheap as they could get.

It is really too bad because, were they just to employ some very basic production principles, the channel would really be a threat to the CBC and CTV news channels. Here's hoping that they start to recognize that they need professionals really doing their job if they want the channel to be anything more than Wayne's World being cut using iMovie.