Do journalists understand online video?
Posted by
Martin Stabe
on 12 June 2006 at 09:58
Tags: Journalism, Online
Last week, Press Gazette and AOL launched /discuss Journalism, a new forum for journalists to discuss their hopes and concerns about how the Internet is affects the future of their trade.
The discussions will be sparked by a six-month long series of essays by journalists and media executives which will appear in the pages of Press Gazette and on the new /discuss Journalism web site. Anyone can contribute an essay by e-mailing discuss@pressgazette.co.uk with a pitch.
The inaugual essay was by Nigel Baker, the executive director of Associated Press Television News (APTN), who argued that most news organisations still have to come to grips with online video, which is only now beginning to gain traction.
“TV news companies have simply placed their broadcast reports online and print organisations have often thought that online video is simply about letting chief reporter Fred Pencilhead intone to camera,” wrote Baker.
That, in his view, is not enough. The Internet is a completly different medium which demands new formats:
There needs to be more understanding of consumption habits. The online viewer is not the same as the TV viewer.
The online user is in control and has a shorter attention span. From APTN’s experience serving new media markets with video during the past five years, the key driver is the compelling image that can be viewed repeatedly or emailed to a friend.
Online video also needs to have “social currency”. In other words, a major talking point where you will be left out of the conversation with your friends if you haven’t seen the pictures.
…
What must never be forgotten is that video news is driven by powerful images, not just stories. A major political story may be best left residing in print in the online world. The dramatic car chase may not have much of a news story behind it, but the spectacular pictures may be the hottest video property on the web that day.
For new entrants to the online video business, adopting a broadcast model with on-screen reporters and traditional voice-overs may be burdening yourself with too much overhead. The users are prepared to accept fewer fripperies in presenting the video if it is worth watching.
The same issue was also raised in a recent Online Journalism Review article. In that piece, Steve Bryant suggested that addition to “must-see TV” — short compelling pieces like car chases — interviews and “evergreen” contextual video was also working well online because its searchability meant that viewers would find the content long after the news event had passed. Newspaper sites that are dabbling in online video, meanwhile, are finding that analysis and film reviews work better than breaking news.
Most would agree that “Fred Pencilhead intoning to camera” is not compelling online video news. But are short viral videos, à la YouTube, really the future of video journalism? Can that format ever convey complex investigative pieces? Will video reportage be dumbed down by the demands of the internet? And do Internet users really have such a short attention span?
Discuss.
Tags: Journalism, Online
