Best practices: Video in online journalism

In support of my opinions about online video, I’m posting a link to a feature produced for the Star Tribune newspaper by my friend Regina McCombs. This story about quad rugby (an indoor sport also known as “murderball”) demonstrates the documentary style and tight editing that, in my opinion, differentiate the best Web video from traditional TV news video. Length: 3 min.

It’s fast, it’s informative — and best of all, it’s not boring.

Granted, this is quite different from breaking news video. I’ll be looking for some good examples of breaking news video produced for the online medium.

Your suggestions are welcome. Send an e-mail or post a comment.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, at 5:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

14 responses to “Best practices: Video in online journalism”

Howard Owens writes:

Have you ever looked at http://www.bakersfield.com/multimedia ?
November 1, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Colin Mulvany writes:

Here is one I did that is still a favorite of mine. Three TV new stations covered the fire. None had the footage of the owner. Smaller video cameras open doors.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/
video/play.asp?file=072905_trailer_sr_hi.mov
November 1, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Danny Sanchez writes:

Check out this nicely edited video story from the Rocky: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_spotlight/article/0,2777,DRMN_23960_4828753,00.html
November 1, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Colin Mulvany writes:

To me, the videos being produced at Bakersfield are amateurish looking and lack storytelling basics. They are only using reporters to shoot video. The paper’s photo department is not involved.

I keep shouting at the top of my lungs that newspaper photo departments need to embrace video or they will lose the ability to have a say in the visuals at their newspapers. Like a good picture story, a video story can be powerful. Having a good sense of composition, framing and anticipation is still in the realm of photojournalist. The bar needs to be set high for online video storytelling. We are professionals and our work should reflect that.
November 1, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Mindy McAdams writes:

Here is a link to Colin’s video from the Spokesman Review.

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

And here a forest fire story from the Star Tribune.
November 1, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Howard Owens writes:

Bakersfield is doing exactly what should be done … lots and lots of video shot with inexpensive cameras by reporters, plus trained videographers doing more polished productions as the story requires with higher end equipment.

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.
November 2, 2006 at 2:05 am
Howard Owens writes:

Colin’s video is good … and not much like TV would produce.

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”?
November 2, 2006 at 2:33 am
Howard Owens writes:

Sorry … make that the guy with the Canon on “the other side of the COUNTY … “
November 2, 2006 at 2:36 am
dmchenry writes:

Quality versus quantity for online video is definitely ripe for debate.

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
November 2, 2006 at 2:36 am
Colin Mulvany writes:

Devin,
I was too harsh in the words I posted. I didn’t mean any disrespect to the people producing video at your paper. You guys are pushing the envelope which I and many others admire. More papers should take chances like Bakersfield.

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.
November 2, 2006 at 4:22 am
dmchenry writes:

Colin,

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
November 2, 2006 at 5:00 am
Howard Owens writes:

Colin, that’s a good point. There are certain basic things that are required regardless of equipment:

– 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.
November 2, 2006 at 6:58 am
Regina writes:

I’ve always been a little puzzled by the quantity over quality argument. If we said, “Hey, let’s get a lot of words together really fast and we won’t worry about spelling or grammar, and we’ll put it on the Web site, and it’ll be great and people will love it,” you’d be laughed out of the room. In the same way that words need skill and structure, video needs skill and structure. Sure, there’s always a place for something down and dirty, just as there’s always a place for transcripts, ransom notes and letters home from soldiers.

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.
November 3, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Howard Owens writes:

Regina, your analogy is imperfect.

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.
November 4, 2006 at 4:21 pm