Newspapers beginning to ‘get’ video
Cory Bergman October 7th, 2006
At ONA 2006, WashingtonPost.com’s Chet Rhodes explains how the newspaper is training its reporters how to shoot video. And the training takes just 55 minutes, Rhodes says. Newspapers all across the country are doing the same (or training their still photographers), and in one respect they have an advantage over TV sites: they’re learning how to produce video for the web, not TV. And yes folks, there’s a difference. Jeff Jarvis explains how his City University of New York class enjoys WashingtonPost.com’s video because it’s “still somewhat raw, not overproduced.” This is a key point that alludes most TV people who were raised on concepts like urgency, pacing and “broadcast quality.” I wouldn’t be surprised that newspapers ultimately end up innovating just as many successful, original web video concepts as TV sites. If not more.
9 Comments Add your own
1. Howard Owens | October 7th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
The Ventura County Star started producing this kind of video three years ago.
2. WebVideo killed the tv star | October 7th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
The greatest thing about the WaPo site and its video: THE FLASH PLAYER!
When are news sites going to obliterate their deference to Windows Media?
I do not understand why newspapers partner with tv stations these days. For what? If I see a story on the tv side touting a newspaper, I go to the newspaper site. I go there anyway. Why? Because the tv sites are lame. They are filled with filler, usually the AP wire on most local tv sites. Local newspapers usually have just local stories on their prime spots on the main page.
High school football is the niche that local stations have to use for something unique — A LIVE WEBCAST! Forget waiting on it until 11 p.m. on a Friday night. Cut the highlights and package it LIVE ON THE WEB.
Local news sites should do more local stuff with the latest and greatest web tools. Use google maps to work with MADD and display the latest DUI arrests. Post other crime data for locales. Make it LOCAL! Also, post local education data. Post local job openings! Why do local tv stations use traffic updates just in their newscasts? Why not use webcams, get a sponsor for the purchase for as many as you can and work with the towns and cities to place them all over. Have your sales departments go out and sell “ads” for placement on google maps. Oops, google has already beat you the punch on that one.
I am not going to tune into your local newscast at a later time because of you teasing BREAKING NEWS IN THE MARK FOLEY SAGA!
3. Alan A. Reiter | October 8th, 2006 at 3:01 am
A killer (or at least “manslaughter”) device for journalists who shoot video?
The camera phone with video capabilities.
As a wireless data analyst who has been looking at and testing camera phones for years, I can say that camera phone video quality is generally just fine for important events. Also, how many journalists will always carry a camcorder?
Consumers will, without a doubt, accept mediocre video quality if it’s “good enough,” just as they accept poor cellular and satellite voice reports.
In fact, even awful camera phone video quality is acceptable if the subject is sufficiently important.
Depending on what statistics you accept, there are either 1 billion camera phones already in use around the world or there will be 1 billion in a year or two. A significant percent of them have video recording capabilities, and that percentage is growing.
I am convinced that of all the wireless technologies I’ve seen, camera phones are one of the most ** revolutionary ** technologies. They will — indeed, are — helping to change reporting.
(FYI: I don’t sell hardware or software or operate any wireless services business; I just consult.)
4. themoscowchannel | October 8th, 2006 at 7:21 am
every so often there’s a good discussion here about the demise of the 6 figure sat. truck.
it is amazing how far phone technology has come in so short of a time frame.
add to that the software Terry H. mentioned not long ago that reworks the video at the receiving end by analyzing missing pixels and you begin to wonder, do you even bother to change the oil anymore?
5. Jim Wilson | October 8th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Geez…
Calm down everyone..
Please, please LOOK at any video a newspaper is doing these days. Please.
The actual quality might be fine. Sure.
But the SUBJECT matter of the video is the problem — and is NOT going to get better.
People at newspapers have no sense of what readers want. Really.
So, why do they think they know what VIDEO people want to view?
Newspapers are doomed because of their news judgment and the weak idea that they THINK they are delivering what anyone wants to read.
Until that changes, their video will be JUST AS LAME as the print stories they are producing.
TRUST ME.
I’ve worked at newspapers and TV. The MINDSET at newspapers is soooooooooooo flawed that simply allowing people to shoot video is NOT going to change the equation.
6. Lost Remote TV Blog&hellip | October 8th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
[...] Newspapers beginning to ‘get’ online video [...]
7. Online News Assn Conferen&hellip | October 9th, 2006 at 10:13 am
[...] One “half-empty” (or 3/4 empty) takeaway from this discussion is that news organizations will need to “dumb-down” the news into simple, bite-sized chunks for the youth market. I don’t agree. Publishers need to adapt themselves to a new medium, which is faster, more visual and more interactive. And, from a business standpoint, most significantly cannot be monetized the same way as the print product. To that end, LostRemote reports on how newspapers are shooting more video for their sites. [...]
8. new cellular phone&hellip | July 20th, 2007 at 6:21 am
new cellular phone…
Hmm, interesting !…
9. Lucy | January 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed