They all seem to be using a mish-mash of cameras and microphones. Some good, and some not.
The station should have shipped them all kits with high quality gear, software to blur the background where needed, a list of tips (e.g, don't let your kid play Steam when you're on-air,etc.), and so on.
This has all been pretty sudden and taken everyone by surprise, I think. And every sort of business is struggling with this sort of thing. A lot of folks who aren't used to working from home are being thrown into this new way of doing things. Not to mention schools closing so kids are home, spouses working from home too, and a slew of other things they now have to worry about during the day.
I highly doubt these stations have a storage room filled with unused gear just for moments like these. And certainly not enough that they can send out a full, high-quality kit to every single one of their on-air people. This type of equipment can get very expensive, so it likely just doesn't make any sense. And now I'm sure there's been a sudden run on equipment making it harder to get.
Joking, but the sports channels have been broadcasting a lot of "classic" (and not so classic) sport events that I remember from as far back as a teenager, and the quality is so bad I can't believe we used to watch it.
Pro tip: If all you see is the sport on the screen with no graphics (or the score/clock!) it's > 25 years old.
The quality wasn't that bad, the recording you're watching is. On the one hand, a friend of mine who's wife is apparently enjoying Columbo reruns, commented on the pancake makeup being quite noticable. Which I suppose it would be if pulling from the original tapes or whatever. On the other hand, my wife and I watched a few reruns of Taxi (late 70s) and I know if it looked that bad back in the day, I wouldn't have watched it.
There might not have been a lot of lines of resolution, but SD TV looked better than many recordings would have you believe. And remember that you're probably watching on a TV three or four times larger than what was used to originally view it.
Of course it is, we collectively didn't spend the money on moving to HD because it's the healthy thing to do. Arguing that HD isn't superior to SD would be silly. Good thing that wasn't what I was saying.
What I am saying is that if you were to go watch an old episode of Taxi on CBS All Access, it did not look as bad when it originally aired on a CRT as it does on CBS's rip from whatever source they used.
I do see the shortage on webcams, but good (or at least better than a laptop built-in) microphones seem still available.
Have you seen how big a professional camera actually is? There are basic physics reasons why they need to be so big. They are complex machines backed by a team of experts.
https://petapixel.com/2019/12/03/this-video-explains-why-tv-...
A film/tv studio is a factory and, just like a steel mill, what it does cannot be replicated in the home. What we are all watching from these in-home shoots is sub-par footage more akin to 1980s soap operas than modern studio footage.
Watch the various Linux Tech Tips episodes about their storage woes. When you film/edit on 4 or 8k raw footage, just editing together a simple youtube segment requires racks of servers, another thing not practical in homes.
I'm suggesting the station help them with better webcams and mics, and tips/help for their setup, like where to put the table lamp.
There's clearly room for improvement, as some of the reporters have decent audio and video (for home equipment), and others don't. Some are barely audible, pixelated, washed out / overlighted, etc.
In short, I mean "higher quality home/consumer gear plus some training".
The issue is likely the suddenness of the shift.
The news studio likely had whatever number of 'field' cameras/mics/lights they use for those "on site" shots, plus a few spares of each to cover for the normal damage that would occur from "in the field" use.
But they very likely did not have enough spares to give the twelve on-air personalities that make up a typical broadcast their own local gear, and still have enough "field" equipment to do those "on site" shots they want to do anyway.
The problem is very likely simple logistics. They had not, ever, planned to have every on air personality who normally works the studio all working from home at the same time, and so they simply did not have enough spare equipment to outfit everyone all at the same time.
That video explains some low-hanging fruit changes that would massively improve the quality of at-home reporting. About $1,000 or so.