Comments on: Video in newsrooms today: Workflow

By: Becky Blanton

Becky Blanton — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:10:10 +0000

Four hours per minute is a luxury and about what I plan to spend on freelance assignments maybe…but I shoot, download, edit and have most breaking news online in an hour - that includes time in the field if it’s a fire or major wreck. Our viewers want action and a description of what’s happening in the action. I’m getting tired of filming cars in trees, up poles, in ditches, on fire and a law enforcement source saying, “This car appears to have hit this tree/pole/building/ditch and the individual inside is dead/trapped/undetermined at this point what injuries they have.” Cut to feet disappearing into an ambulance. Think of it like “Cops.” It’s the same stuff, different characters. WHY does it fascinate people? I dunno. But the more times I do it the faster it goes.

By: Infotendencias.com :: blog colectivo sobre convergencia periodística

Infotendencias.com :: blog colectivo sobre convergencia periodística — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:36:28 +0000

[…] Vía Teaching Online Journalism […]

By: Rebecca Coates Nee

Rebecca Coates Nee — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:18:57 +0000

Having been a one-woman band many years ago (with the bad shoulder to prove it), I am concerned about how having to shoot video takes away from getting the facts of the story.

But at least it seems newspapers are breaking the standard package formula we use in local TV. The reporter narration and useless walking-talking standups appear to be gone (thankfully).

Would you agree that the most effective videos online seem to incorporate still shots, natural sound, and audio from the interview subjects? Is the reporter’s mug or voice even necessary?

I’m glad to see newspapers breaking the tired old “he said/she said” formula of broadcast reporting.

Maybe the role of video in newspapers never should be clearly defined.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:51:31 +0000

That’s a great idea Mindy.

The non-US responses were pretty small. It’s going to take a little more time, effort and human intervention to get stuff that can build in to something that will stand up more than a straw poll.

The more info that keeps coming in the better.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:19:03 +0000

@Andy (Dickinson) — if you have any grad students there, you might want to set them to work on a proper version of this study — it would be worth doing, and now would be an awesome time to begin it. Just imagine how they could repeat the study and do comparisons in one year, in two years, etc. Very interesting!!

By: Mindy

Mindy — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:16:34 +0000

@Andy Perdue — how come there are no dates on any of your videos? The headlines are nice and descriptive, but neither in the list, nor on the video text in the window, nor in the video itself does the month, day and year ever appear. “Last Wednesday” — when the heck was that?

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:06:32 +0000

Thanks for the plug Mindy.

You’re right it isn’t anywhere close to scientific. You should have seen the first one

I started the survey more out of curiosity than any academic endevour but it’s planted enough seeds in my head of areas to look at that it may. If anything it throws up some interesting questions about who is doing this stuff.

By: Andy Perdue

Andy Perdue — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:02:07 +0000

Four hours? Perhaps we aren’t spending enough time on our video. If we get a reporter or photographer coming back from a breaking story, we’ll typically have the video up in 30 minutes. The video probably took another 15 minutes to shoot with 15 minutes of drive time. But we’re talking interviews, B-roll, etc., not a Ken Burns documentary.

For a feature story, yes, it will take a lot more time. But 4 hours per minute? Hmm.