Why should you shoot video?
The managing editor of a medium-size daily newspaper recently asked my advice on how to train editors to mentor their reporters who are gathering multimedia assets for their stories. One bit of the advice I gave:
“A lot of breaking news is not going to warrant multimedia unless it’s, like, giant smoke clouds billowing out of a fire. Floods. Dramatic pictures.
“If you have big billowing clouds of smoke or raging flood waters (stuff that moves), then video. Avoid talking heads. Totally boring. Avoid scenery. Use stills for scenery. Video demands movement.”
Watch this video from Colin Mulvany of The Spokesman-Review, a newspaper in Spokane, Washington. ’Nuff said!
The fire started about 5:30 p.m. Colin posted his video at 8:59 p.m. Wow! Way to shoot and edit, man!
(Link via Angela Grant at News Videographer.)
Dramatic action does help video.
But the reason to do video is emotion. If your subject is moving (emotionally, not necessarily physically), your video will succeed. If your video doesn’t make an emotional connection, it fails.
A lot of newsrooms are trying to put newspaper-style print stories into video. It doesn’t work.
July 29, 2007 at 10:59 pmI agree, Chuck. But I do think there are certain “big visuals” (fires, floods) that people will watch even without a clear emotional connection.
Maybe we manufacture the emotions on our own when we see shocking disasters?
Car chases, on the other hand — I feel zero emotion when I see those (except sometimes in action movies, when the editing is very good … mm, “The Italian Job” comes to mind …)
I always feel disgusted when I see police chases on the TV news, because (a) I often think the chase shouldn’t even be taking place, putting other drivers and people at risk; and (b) the announcer’s voiceover strikes me as a pathetic effort to try to create an emotional connection between me and … cars. Sorry, it never works.
July 30, 2007 at 8:47 amI agree with Chuck. Of course shoot the dramatic action stuff - but the action stuff is when everyone gets out the camera. So you may well find it on youtube. One upside of the the action stuff is that it may have greater re-sale value for all those awful disaster list programmes.
What newspapers should learn is how moving pictures tell you so much more about personalities. Learning to combine great interviews with appropriate actuality (not just wall paper shots) it was sets out one video story from another. Another approach is too shoot on the move - create mini observation documentaries which reveal personalities. Tricky to do though
Of course ditch that old newspaper question technique (”Would you say Mr Green that this is has been the worst day of your life” answer “yes”, quote in story “It was the worst day of my life” said Mr Green).
July 30, 2007 at 2:30 pmMy British published book on practising videojournalism looks at the move by newspapers especially local ones in the UK to posting video on their newly-created websites.
A great example of how one newspaper attracted hits was by North Wales Newspapers who showed two motorcyclists speeding at 100mph along a main road. It was taken from the weekly blog written by North Wales Police Chief Richard Brunstrom showing the riders on the main route along the North Wales coast. They were filmed travelling erratically at 100mph from a helicopter, before being arrested and later banned for 12 and 15 months. For the newspaper group’s publishing director Graham Breeze it was a case of good timing as,
“we were developing our sites and were actively looking for the right material to launch video streaming. The antics of speeding motorcyclists through our publishing area is of concern to all our readers, particularly with the number of fatalities on our roads this summer.”
So this served a double purpose- using good video footage to show a community response.
I think newspapers do have a lot ot learn about what is attractive to their new online readers- but one thing never fails and that is exciting footage- that is relevant.
August 27, 2007 at 12:56 pm[...] I have a different belief, however. Each day am I shocked by multitude of terrible video on newspapers’ Web sites. One that comes to mind is the filming of a Jet Ski being placed onto a trailer by police after it was involved in an accident which claimed one life. There was no visible damage to the watercraft, and nothing visually to tell the story of this tragic accident. I would have linked to this video, but unfortunatly, the video has been removed from the site. My point is that just because you shoot video, doesn’t mean the subject is worth it. Use video for the things video is good for: emotion, a sense of place. Mindy McAdams says it best here. [...]
October 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm