Twitter show and Tucker’s aesthetic

Tucker’s first Twitter show debuted to massive fanfare and page views. Some claim that over 70,000,000 people saw the tweet, and it’s fair to speculate that 10 million saw some or all of the monologue. And yet, I’m bearish on Tucker if he doesn’t greatly improve the production value.

Tucker’s show worked on cable news because it transgressed the medium from which it sent messages and because Tucker is a class traitor. (The latter is Trump’s appeal.) When someone who looked like old money said things that were true and forbidden, massive interest followed. Now Tucker is rolling with the rest of us. and loses the benefit of telling controversial truths on a cable network that forces hosts to paint inside the lines.

It has brought its cable news aesthetic to an online world. This will not work after two weeks.

Tucker’s TV show always lacked high production value. Foxnews, for its evening programs, relies on the A-cam in the face with a graphic in a pop-up box. This is boring and for old people. Yes Tucker had the highest rated show in the “target demographic” of 24-54 year olds. Many of us have more people reading or listening to us from this demographic through Twitter. Every day.

Cable news viewership numbers are not impressive in an online world. These numbers are important to the networks because everyone from advertisers to the cable companies themselves agreed that they matter.

Why have a video if there is no reason to watch it?

I learned this from reading a book about documentary filmmaking and kept telling the Hoaxed crew: It’s not a movie if you can listen to it like the PBS newshour.

• Tucker will want/need overlays while reading articles.

• It needs different camera angles.

• It should be followed by two cinematographers who constantly get B-roll.

• Viewers are obsessed with behind-the-scenes footage. This works whether you’re making VH1 documentaries about Tina Turner, UFC fight promos, 30 For 30, The Last Dance (Bulls, not ballroom), or any compelling visual narrative that creates an emotional connection to the views.

• During the show, Tucker needs the top camera angle to focus on the news articles. Once again, Alex Jones does it right.

This is an example of Alex Jones’ production value. It’s cool and attractive.

The video must tell the story.

Many people think you need “jump cuts” and this is incorrect. You don’t have to be full blown ADHD like Mr Beast.

Tucker wants an intelligent audience.

Visual storytelling appeals to high IQ viewers.

Some low IQ people will claim I’m a Tucker hater. laughable Or ask, “Why don’t you do this?”

I prefer to write, my impact seems to be fine. I stopped doing live streams because people recognized me too often in public. Now I’m kind of a nobody, and it’s great.

Additionally, it will cost Tucker $500,000 in film production alone. It would require two cinematographers and one or more video editors constantly cataloging footage. It will require a seven-figure budget for production and equipment.

With this amount of money at stake, you have to work. I don’t want to work so much. Maybe this is a character flaw. Whatever.

I’m not particularly interested in raising funds to put on a proper show. Tucker might not be, either. He has earned the right to take it easy, not to push the production and get as many viewers as he can. (Which will be a lot.)

If I were to do a show, yes I would follow the advice given here or I wouldn’t bother doing one.

A documentary I produced, Hoaxed, was the best-selling documentary for several weeks on iTunes, and graphics throughout iTunes. Amazon banned Hoaxed without explanation once Hoaxed was trending all over the stream.

Hoaxed was on the AP bestseller list two weeks in a row.

If you’re curious about my bona fides, go see something I’ve done right.

The hype of Tucker’s return will die down soon, and then he’ll have to go like everyone else.

I hope he does well.