For more, we now cross live ...

The live cross has become something of a ploy in television news, a signifier of importance over-used to the point of exhaustion. For more, we cross live to Chris Philpott, who is sitting in his bedroom as he types this. Chris?

Yes, I'm here in ... Wait, are we on? Oh ... I'm here at my desk, where I'm pondering the use of live crosses in the television news - you know, that moment in an important story where the anchors, having introduced the story, pass it off to a reporter in the field for some unique insight that can only be gleaned by actually being out in the field.

It used to be that live crosses were sparing and effective; we'd cross live to a reporter in some eastern European war zone as they talk us through the action taking place behind them - "as you can see, missiles are being fired about 100m from where I'm standing", that kind of thing.

Even last year, during post-quake coverage in Christchurch, the live cross was used well by the main news outlets to give us a glimpse at what was going on, to make us feel as though we're right there, to bring the events into our living rooms and make them as real as possible.

But, at some point, the live cross jumped the shark.

The words "live cross" always used to indicate something worth watching during a news bulletin. Now it just means that we're going somewhere other than the studio, possibly for no reason.

My first sense that the live cross was being used flippantly came late in the post-quake coverage: One News crossed live to Simon Dallow in one part of Christchurch, then Dallow passed us off to a reporter doing a live cross in another part of Christchurch. It was the Inception of live crosses; a live cross within a live cross. It struck me as odd, but I didn't really think much of it at the time because the story felt so important.

However, after Sunday evening's news broadcast, I'm legitimately concerned for the credibility of the live cross. One News led with a story about a kiwifruit grower who had been injecting antibiotics into his crop and, for more on the story, crossed live to Heather Du Plessis-Allan ... who was sitting in the office behind the studio.

At least, I assume it was the office behind the studio. Desks, computers, a few clocks on the wall displaying times from around the world - it sure looked like what I would imagine the office behind the studio looks like.

Why did we need to cross live to the office? Your guess is as good as mine. Heather didn't say anything there that couldn't have just been said by Peter Williams, and she didn't use the office in any way that meant the location was important. She could have been standing in her own kitchen preparing dinner and the cross would have made just as much sense. The only way it could have been more ridiculous is if she'd done a Wendy Petrie-style fist pump to close the segment in the mistaken belief that she was off camera.

This is nothing more than live cross abuse, folks - and I for one think that the networks (especially One News, who seem to be the biggest offender) need to go back to using the live cross only when the story calls for it. If your anchor can deliver the information from the studio, you can probably just use them instead of crossing to some poor reporter in the office. You are paying them to deliver information to the audience, after all.

Chris Philpott, On the Box.

*fist pump*

Make sure you like On the Box on Facebook and add Chris on Twitter.
Or, feel free to email Chris at otbmail@chrisphilpott.co.nz. 
This is a spoiler-free blog - please comment responsibly.