First, anything that inhibits clear communication of the substance of information is a sin.

Second, the general terms you use to sum up bad writing goes well beyond what Colin has defined as “amateurish” in Bakersfield’s video.

Third, in this age of blogs, the public has shown a great tolerance for unedited text. It’s a pretty big room and there ain’t a lot of laughing going on.

Old line journalists seem to have a hard time with this concept: It’s the content that matters. It’s substance over style. In fact, I think there might be a case to be made for dumping the AP Stylebook in this age of user-generated content and drive-by information consumption. Good presentation helps, but it isn’t what sells the story — the story sells the story. Either you have content that people like or you don’t.

Anything that bogs down information flow, such as spending hours shooting and editing video or finely crafting a story, is no longer really appropriate.

BTW: I should add that the things Colin defines as amateurish has not really been a consistent part of Bakersfield’s video production for many months — as reporters do more and learn (and reporters are pretty smart, so they usually figure out what works and what doesn’t), the quality improves. If you’re sitting around waiting for your newsroom to produce CNN-quality video stories, you’ll never have video on your Web site.

I can’t think of a single writer or photographer who would consider amateurish a compliment.

Just because video is a skill set most folks who work at newspapers don’t possess doesn’t mean users don’t understand it. We’re a visually literate society, and people know a good story when they see it. Getting them to click isn’t enough. We need to provide them information, understanding, something that fulfills our role as journalists. And do it with some craft.

– Be mindful of background noise and lighting (most important with consumer electronics equipment, more so than higher end prosumer electronics)
– Steady hand
– Good Frames
– Don’t talk over subjects and avoid the ums, uh-huhs, etc.

I’ve preached it … of course, it still takes practice and reminders.

But good video doesn’t need to be spit and polish perfect. It just needs to tell the story.

No worries. I think we’re all sorting out exactly how best to do online video. And I’m not sure there will ever be one concrete way to do it.

For what it is worth, we’re constantly trying to improve the quality of our videos. Our multimedia editor Jennifer Baldwin works with reporters every day to give them tips to improve their footage. She also gets training herself to make sure she is on the top of her game.

We definitely are on the risky end of the scale. There is video we put up six months ago that we would never put up now. And after sitting in on Ken Sands’ presentation at the APME conference in New Orleans I have been thinking more and more about our quality and where the threshold should lie.

I think we need folks on both ends of the spectrum, constantly challenging each other, to find the right balance.

If we could swing it I would love to have you come down and talk to our photo staff about your experience with video. And to share your thoughts with our reporting staff too.

Davin

I guess where I have problems is in some the basic stuff, like reporters talking over the audio as in rainstorm video. I really think that with more training you could improve the storytelling quality which would then make your videos more compelling for the viewers.

I realize that I have been spoiled at my paper by my ability to take the time to try and get it right. I just feel strongly, that as our industry changes, we don’t just take the path of least resistance by opting for quality that is just good enough.

I think the line for quality is very different online than for broadcast. We’ve got a whole generation that loves watching grainy, amateur video on YouTube. They don’t need broadcast quality video and audio. They don’t need well scripted storylines. They just want something short and fun.

So the question becomes, do you produce a handful of videos of high quality (which viewers will appreciate, but do not demand) or do you go with a lower (but still accepted) standard and produce a lot more video?

I think it’s clear we lean towards the latter.

I’m not saying there isn’t value in going with a higher quality. But I don’t know if you’re going to build a regular audience with one video a week.

FYI, the Becoming a Cop video was shot with a point and shoot camera and edited by a reporter.

Davin McHenry
Web editor
Bakersfield Californian

That said, on the fire story for example, what if the guy with Canon XL isn’t working that day, or is covering another story, or on the other side of the camera, do you miss a chance to get some worthwhile video? Or do you arm you reporters with Sony Cybershots and take what you can get, because even “amateurish” is better than nothing.

Aparently, Colin hasn’t heard of YouTube.

As for Bakersfield … on the page now is a video called “Becoming a Cop: October (4:03)” This was shot with a Canon XL (I’m pretty sure, but I wasn’t involved in anyway) and edited by an experienced editor. Is this what Colin calls “amateurish”?

Amateurish is a compliment!

If still fotogs want to pick up video cameras, great. Most of the fotog video I’ve seen has been outstanding, but that isn’t the only way to get things done, and you can’t put so much emphasis on trying to be slick and professional that you don’t get the quick-hit, breaking news video, or the quantity of video tied to multiple stories — if you’re doing this right, just about every story can associated video.

And the videos should look and feel like newspaper people shot them, not TV people. They’re more engaging that way.

Here is a link to the video Danny recommended from the Rocky Mountain News.

And here a forest fire story from the Star Tribune.