So, newspapers have been buying multimedia equipment and handing it off to print reporters who have little aptitude for and even less interest in using it. The video gets displayed either alongside a print story or on its own. Sometimes the results are powerful - you can link to examples of those here.
Other times, when a print reporter does a broadcast story, it sounds like - well, a print reporter doing a broadcast story. But who really cares? Is video THAT necessary that people will want to go to a newspaper's Web site just to watch the news, not read it? Why not go to the TV station's site instead?
No legitimate research has been done on what impact video is having on newspaper Web sites, if at all. This issue is being debated and discussed by some of the most forward looking thinkers in online journalism. University of Florida professor Mindy McAdams asks whether newspaper video is really serving Web users that well. Multimedia guru Rob Curley, now at the Las Vegas Sun, outlines his video strategy for newspapers. And Nebraska Web editor Stephanie Romanski shares her concerns/frustrations with the medium.
Journalism schools are now teaching both print and broadcast students how to shoot and edit video because we are fairly certain they will need those skills no matter what type of media job they land (if they land one at all). I am reluctantly requiring my seniors and grad students (some of whom are print reporters) to do the standard "package."
That's the typical TV formula - nat sound, reporter audio, soundbite, audio, soundbite, audio, standup. It's a he-said-she-said recipe and it's old. I'm not sure that it even works. The beauty of the Web is the unexpected (see my earlier post on creativity).
Newspaper reporters CAN beat TV reporters on the digital playground - if they break that hackneyed old package formula, not by duplicating it. Former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie thinks newspapers are starting to win the video contest -by offering more of it, in more ways and on more platforms. He might be right. But is anyone watching?
Posts
3 comments:
In our newsroom, we've seen a drastic increase in our video audience since we started regularly posting video. People are watching, just not in the numbers we'd like them to.
This has brought us to the age-old argument: quantity vs. quality. Do you work for days on that artful story, or do you post bits of breaking news and lots of them.
Newspaper web sites have found audiences for both, so I think that's the answer. Both.
On form, I think you will find out that most newspapers have already abandoned the "TV" style package in favor of a more mini-documentary approach: let the sources tell the story, not a reporter. I kind of like that approach myself.
So I would encourage your students to experiment with it all: a compelling clip that augments a text story (what I like to call a video glance box), as well as stand-alone video stories. With those, you don't need a stand-up, or even narration, just a beginning, middle and an end.
But as an on-the-job DIY student of multimedia, what I'm still trying to learn is workflow: how to get it done elegantly, informatively and quickly, weaving yet another task into my day.
Thanks for your comments, Ron. I tend to agree with your approach. The bottom line is how to best tell the story, not how to best use the formula. We will use your video glance box idea as we build our multimedia Web site. Maybe we can Skype you into our class sometime!
Rebecca
The quality vs. quantity issue is the central challenge from a print reporter's standpoint. Already we who have survived layoffs and buyouts are faced with increasing demands to fill the paper.
The learning curve on any new skill can be pretty steep, meaning a demand on time. I haven't yet figured out how to work in time for other ways to tell the story when I feel I'm barely keeping ahead of the boulder in my print duties.
I also haven't come to terms with the function of other media. Is my goal with video to supplement the print story or to produce a parallel stand-alone piece? How does the outcome of that decision affect my information and image gathering?
I'll continue to dabble in video and sound, but initially these media feel very constraining and shallow compared to what I'm used to in print.
My thinking will evolve as I gain some technical expertise and can deliver images that don't look so amateurish.
Post a Comment