Comments on: Who has time for video?

By: Mindy McAdams

Mindy McAdams — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:49:38 +0000

Remixing -- definitely key today. Very important, I agree.

Video as the only medium some people can or will use -- that's a really interesting idea! I saw the homeless video from St. Pete that you mentioned. Great example.

I think maybe the Rodney King video is another example. No one would have believed it if the guy had only written text about it.

Pierce, thanks for the thoughtful comment. That was really thought-provoking for me.

By: Murley

Murley — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:22:39 +0000

“How do you find the time?” I get asked that question a lot. My response: I find the time for the things I am passionate about. I wrote that at the ICM blog too.

We’ve got to have open discussions about when video is a good choice and when it is not.

I think that’s what’s going on now. I see it all the time in the “quantity” vs. “quality” debate that crops up (aka Owens v. Grant)

I see a place for both. But now is the time when we’re in flux. People are placing their bets and summoning their arguments on both sides of the issue. It may be a while before we get a definite answer. Because ultimately, we may find that people (“real people,” not media producers and professors like us) vote for something completely different than we would. Just like they vote to read different things than some of us would like them to read or watch (anna nicole over the frontline war series, for instance). Not saying it’s right, but it’s a factor.

As for onBeing, I think it’s interesting that people have been quick to lay comment on this offering. Curley himself says he prefers to give something a year to 18 months to really judge it a success or failure. But the industry is in such a nervous state that we’re all quick to draw conclusions one way or the other.

By: Pierce

Pierce — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:53:47 +0000

Slightly tangential comment: While I think time is an important factor, I think we need to remember that while there are limitations to video, it has assets as well. I think there are three things we need to talk about in relation to this: the remixing the content (which while not exclusive to the medium, is certainly a mostly untapped resource), creators only capable of using video and consumers only capable of using video (the latter two are more exclusive than in all but the most extreme cases, but you get the drift).
First, the remixes. While it may be beyond the fortitude of Tom (or anyone else) to sit through a 50-minute Web cast, but if the original producer or someone with more time than him sliced and diced and put out the ten minutes of Joe Editor talking about how much he loves those all-Flash sites and the eye-rolling from the Web-head at the other end of the dais, it becomes a lot less onerous. This, of course, depends on there being someone both willing and capable of doing the dirty work, but hopefully it will become more and more the norm. (A low-tech version is the “good stuff happens at 13:40 into the clip”, which requires some user knowledge of the media player–and some capability in the player itself.) Also, would it kill the panel people to put out audio-only for the podcastees?
Second, there are those creators or subjects who, for one reason or another, would be less fully realized in other mediums–to the point of being unrealized in some cases. An example might be the homeless people I read about using YouTube to publicize their plight, or even something as banal as reality television.
Finally, there are some audiences for whom video is the most, or even the only, accessible medium. For example, I am in the midst of a so-far fruitless search for a video explaining unipolar and bipolar depression with the punch and clarity of Joshua Wolf Shenk’s words in Lincoln’s Melancholy, so that someone dealing with a loved one suffering from the disease can better understand what’s going on. I can read it or listen to it and get an good mental picture, but that’s not how this person is wired (but try her out at the Scene It games, and you best bring a lunch).
What do these three points have to do with time? The first is about saving time: I, like everyone else, don’t want to wade through 45 minutes of blah blah to get to the good stuff; the second is about making sure we make time for video by those with no other outlet–we can’t let our lack of time squeeze them out of the conversation; the third is about making sure that we take the time to create video for those who need it because otherwise they won’t have access to the information.
Whether or not this fits in with any media company’s business plan right now is another matter altogether.