I was in sales and never an on air guy, but it drives me nuts to hear people on the air use "uh" on the air. The worst person I've heard at this is KEX's traffic reporter Michael Convery. I've joked with other people that if you wanted to play a drinking game, all you'd need to do is take a shot everytime he says "uh" during any given report. You could possibly be drunk after one report.

KEX has great traffic, but anyone else noticed the excessive "uh" usage?

Yep. Could get hammered quick!

For me, it depends on the person. Honestly, it works for some people, and I'm ok with that. I generally like his reports, and the "uh" bits just kind of flow with the rest of it.

Could be worse!

"Umm" is a lot harder to make work!

Same with "Ahhhh", and "Err"

Not sure why I find those much worse, but I do.

It works for Eddie Izzard.

Yeah it does!

Um, Uh, like, you know, err....

Words that should never be used in public speaking. An occasional one maybe, but not consistently.
I shot a training video last year for a client and am doing the final editing now. It lasts an hour and I am taking out most of his "umm" as best I can. It is taking forever. He says it about every other sentence.... about every ten seconds. I don't always have cover shots or other sources to go to to cover the edit but I have been working on this for 3 days and am only up to 38 minutes in. Pretty soon, I may know the speach better than him.

Of course, that kind of talk may become fashionable now with the new President. Unless he has a script to read, it appears that he doesn't seem able to speak or talk without a lot of usage of those words.

I don't always have cover shots or other sources to go to to cover the edit but I have been working on this for 3 days

Delete the "umm" sound and cover it up with room tone. Or cut out the "umm" video/sound and do a long crossfade. If he's not moving his body, it might work on some of them.

Save all the "umms" on a DVD and show the client in the event the end result is less than perfect.

In defense of Mr. Convery and every other traffic guy/gal: They're working without scripts, just notes at best - and often just memory. So, uh, it happens.
The challenge in the old airborne days was to avoid not the uh's... but the 'oh shit' when you see the landing gear tire of another traffic plane filling up your field of view at 1500 feet!

The ONLY reason someone uses "uh" or any of the other crutches is because they have not fully thought out what they are going to say ahead of time.
Doesn't matter if scripted or live. Think ahead just a bit.
Eric Norberg taught me how to drop my "uhs".
He held a big sign in front of me for 2 days that said in big block letters "UH" and I stopped!

LOL!!

That's awesome. Filed that one away for future reference. (we get stuck with videos from time to time as well)

Yeah, thinkers do that. When done in that context, maybe that's why it works for some people. And if the President is bold enough to actually talk to us, well I can handle a few of these gaffes.

Much better than "the state of the bubble".

I for one would like to hear the President Elect talk from his heart, than from a well scripted teleprompter. More truth that way.

As a listener and viewer, what I expect from a traffic reporter is accuracy first, and delivery second. This is the quintessential service element; it's not supposed to be some smooth talent reading a spot.

I will say that traffic reporting is an excellent way to pick up adlib skills that will carry over into news. Reports are extemporaneous and immediate, based on information that's changing by the second, and you have to induce an effective flow of facts from the eye to the brain to the mouth. I've heard that the old KGW news team expected all of its members to do traffic for just that reason.

That's probably why it works for me. On one hand, it's a gaffe. On the other, it's got immediacy, and that's really mission one with something like a traffic report.

In a way, that's an indicator as to what I am listening to. Bet a lot of people pick up on that and it just goes from there.

I like the reports, and make use of them regularly. All good.

In my opinion, the most annoying thing about "uh"s, "um"s, etc. is that when one starts to make an effort at eliminating them from one's own speech, one readily starts to notice when other people use them. A few years ago, I experienced this while trying to improve my own communications skills.

Occasionally, I do hear some "uh"s and the like uttered on the Portland airwaves. However, what I have heard on the air sounds pristine compared to the thoroughly amateurish presentation that one sees or hears in most video blogs and audio blogs. A lot of these bloggers think that they can just "wing it," when they should at least write up some notes.

I would just love see anyone here who has a problem with Mr Convery's delivery to take a stab at what is one of the toughest jobs on the air...the constantly changing traffic situation. Michael does an outstanding job on the air and always has. Michael is one of the hardest working broadcasters in town. In my opinion his delivery is just fine!

Here here.

Live reporting is not a speech. There is no time for implementing any training in the art of the pregnant pause. Not only that, but anyone that's worked AM knows the mantra "no dead air'' the roots of which are in the strategy to combat the noisy nature of our oldest broadcast method and the problems encountered with noise and ACI rushing into any non modulated second.

In our current landscape of DAWS editing, where every blip is taken out (and makes the overall presentation sound like a funny car Sunday Sunday commercial), it is no surprise to me that listeners become used to plastic over edited copy that does not reflect conversational delivery, which is not desired by most program directors it would appear.

Yep. I notice that the harshest critics are often people who've never cracked a microphone.

Thing about traffic is that you can phone it in, figuratively, relying on crutches and making assumptions. I hear that a lot in PDX and across the nation, people who treat traffic as some unimportant career sidetrack while they look for something better. Or you can treat it like the dynamic animal that it is, where your content can save time and hassle for your listeners--or make things worse by glibly or sullenly spewing out bad information. Listeners quickly learn the difference, and the results show in numbers and the station's overall credibility.

Give me correct stuff interspersed with the occasional "uh" any time.

Digital editing has definitely changed the way commercials sound. Sure, back in the old days we had splicing tape, but it could be awkward and time consuming. So you just read the spot, naturally, and yes, it probably did sound more conversational. Today, you read sentences, or even parts of sentences, then wrap them together electronically. If you listen closely, you may hear very unnatural deliveries thanks to today's technology!

> If you listen closely, you may hear very unnatural deliveries thanks to today's technology!

No kidding! The rapid-fire disclaimers at the ends of some commercials come to mind.

"Here, here."

No, it's "Hear, hear." It's an expression used as a short repeated form of "hear ye and hear him."

Just listened to one, carefully this time, thinking about this thread.

The thinking and integrating of the facts he sees is exactly what is going on. First, stable portion of it was flawless. Delivery, tone, speed, all of it, just great! Perfect.

The last 10 seconds, where it's time to pick up loose ends had maybe three "uhs" in it. This is nothing, when considering the info, delivering and keeping an eye on the clock, so that it all fits nicely.

This thread is a non issue. He's great sounding.

I notice that the harshest critics are often people who've never cracked a microphone.

Exactly. The first word out of their mouths would be, "uhh."

LOL!

I appreciate salespeople who take such an interest in the quality of the product that these finer points are of concern to them. It would be even cooler if they devoted their critical analysis to the commercials which they stick on the air in exchange for revenue and commissions.

I diplomatically suggest that the screaming car spots and lurid Fox TV ads that adorn the air are not only a greater blemish than the occasional "uh" by a traffic reporter, they're a tuneout that dampens the very Arbitron numbers that they need to sell. But where's the thread on spots that kill listenership?

Maybe there's not enough bandwith on the Internet.

Skeptical,
Unfortunately, the camera is on the speaker while he is talking. Yes, I can cover with room noise and put an audio transition there to remove the pop or click if there, but you see his mouth moving. Sometimes it is OK because he goes right to a statement and it is not noticeable. Sometimes, when it would really be noticeable, I just leave it in... a few here and there is ok. Sometimes, I leave his previous slide up longer or put the next one in a little earlier. I am not removing all of them, just most of the bad ones.

Others,
I never commented on Convery's delivery. I have heard him from time to time and don't really notice it. However, he has the same constraints as others doing the job and I don't hear them doing it, either. Maybe I am just looking for the information (main point) and not hearing the total delivery. One can break the habit by concentrating and working at it. Yes, I do public speaking and live total ad-lib in front of audiences and concentrate on not saying what I mentioned above. Pretty soon, it becomes natural to not say them.
And yes, when listening to someone talk to me, I interrupt them on about the fourth or fifth repeat of "you know" and tell them, politely, "NO, I do not know". Plus, if I knew, there is no need for them to tell me.

@Eastwood: Hell yes! Annoying spots are THE WORST.

I'll take the other stuff any day. Toss in a Freudian slip or two, and it's perfect!

Michael Convery is also seen on KGW-TV mornings. Is he in the KGW studios or Clear Channel studios?

In the days before cameras being mounted everywhere, I had a one-day ( ahem...one-TIME ) stint to try and " do the traffic." I was handed a sheet of paper with abbreviations and codes and acronyms...it may as well been Esperanto.

So I made it up. Announced all sorts of problems everywhere in the usual spots, pretending that I was reading it. That was the only day in history when nobody that was driving anywhere was late. Not one.

Or so I like to believe.

I listened to three traffic reports by Michael this morning on KEX and he sounded very professional. I only heard one short 'uh' and that was during a transition from bantering with Paul Linneman to talking about traffic.

I must be listening to a different Michael Convery. When giving reports on basically the same areas day after day, wouldn't it become almost second nature for traffic to give smooth reports? All I know is that other trafiic people in town such as Bill Diaz, Mark Dornfeld, Gina Ryder, Lynn Masterson, Jolynn Winter, and Jeff Mitchell are very smooth in their delivery.

Legendary Portland traffic reporters such as Lyle Arthur, Dennis Nordin and Officer Tony were also as smooth as can be. In their days, they didn't have computers giving them every problem in the metro area like traffic people do today.

Yes, it's a pet peeve, but I also wouldn't listen to a newsperson that "uh'd" all through a newscast.