One of the reasons I wanted us to aggressively pursue video in Ventura was video seemed like an opportunity. When you consider all the ways that newspapers are being disrupted, why not spend a little time to try and figure out who newspapers can disrupt — among the chief candidates: Local television.
I don’t think it’s yet too late for newspapers to get aggressive about video, but time is running short. Other disruptors are already established. Michael Arrington is now recommending that we just go ahead and declare television dead and move on.
Rob Curley wants to make newspaper video more like television video. I say, let’s make it different. Let’s make it more like the web. Studio55 vs. TimesCast. At least to start, and when we get to Curley’s magic three years out, and we’re streaming directly to the big device in the living room, then we can evolve from Toyota Corolla stage to the Lexus LX model. By then, we should understand what that model should look like. We don’t know that today, but I bet it ain’t like broadcast television.
UPDATE: Jack Lail gets it.
If innovation and disruption come from small startups (or startup-like operations) who come out of nowhere with a product that is good enough to meet a need, then operate like they do.
Two guys in a garage or dorm room didn’t create a behemoth Internet portal with mail, maps, movies and more; they created a collection of links. It grew into a behemoth. Craig Newmark started with an email to friends and grew it into Craigslist. Start with what you can do and make it better. Just do.
UPDATE II: A poster at B-Roll.net takes a swipe at my “mypoic arrogance” and notes, fairly, that not all TV news coverage is bad. That’s true of course, but the opening is in the fact that most of it is bad, which the poster cops to.
Bold words from an industry hemorrhaging market share. Honestly, I wish them all the luck in the world, for the amalgamation of our two mediums would greatly improve the information stream – and where better to showcase it than on-line? Trouble is, too many in the print realm dismiss local TV efforts as entirely without merit. They gleefully point to the lowest common denominators, the “Killer Dust-Bunnies Hiding Under Your Child’s Bedâ€? series-piece syndrome. Granted, the worst of my lot is guilty of such tripe, but I for one don’t deal in this bottom-feeding and neither do those who share my logo. Print folk would do themselves a huge favor by putting aside their contempt and taking a long hard look at the very best of broadcast news, starting with the NPPA reels readily available on-line.
In my own defense, I just want to say that I’ve always said newspaper video needs to evolve and get better, and I’ve sent videographers to study with TV shooters — we have a lot we can learn. Also, this isn’t about individuals. It’s about instiutions. Television news as an institution as a lot to answer for when it reaches the pearly gates. Of course, print journalists have their own sins to atone for. So, it’s about instiutions and opportunities. I see opportunity in another institutions weakness. See ya at the lunch table, Lenslinger (why is that handle familiar to me?)
UPDATE III: Lenslinger also has a blog and his post is also available here.
UPDATE IV: A TV photoguy who goes by the charming handle “Turdpolisher” responds. I left a comment along the lines of, “You’re so busy being defensive that you miss the point.”
I agree with you, online video won’t be broadcast television, nor will it be what Curley calls newspaper video. It will be something in between. But I believe broadcast networks are closer to the answer than newspapers will ever be. To newspapers, dabbling in video is a sideshow in another tent. For broadcast television, video is second nature for them. They already have advertising relationships to support these activities. They already have equipment, mixers, software, and talent. Newspaper execs are in a bunker right now hanging on to their circulation as best they can as it erodes by 1%-5% per year. YouTube.com or another ‘yet-to-be-determined’ portal will figure it out way before newspapers ever do.
Again, what’s disruptive about newspaper video? Should we be shooting for viral local quirkiness, or mass appeal “slice of life in our town” stories? Or is being more local than the nearest television station disruptive enough?
It’s disruptive to come in at the low end and provide a convenient, interesting alternative to local TV news — provide something on the Web that they are not providing … more stories, more voices, a different perspective.
I recommend reading “Innovator’s Solution.”
I aspire for my work to be much different than TV news. Better.
I think many newspaper employees share a common loathing for TV news. It’s shallow and superficial because it’s bound by time limits and ratings. In my opinion, the importance of the “talent” gets in the way of a good story.
Internet should also have time limits, but it’s due to the limit of a person’s attention span. It’s not because there must be time for the commercials. That provides us more freedom. If your story is good enough, you may be able to hold a person’s attention longer.
And although we do want to produce stories that will interest our audience, we’re not slaves to ratings. We have more freedom. I hope that means no fear-mongering stories about “dustbunnies on your kid’s playground.” (I’m serious, an Austin TV station did that).
We’ve got to use our newfound freedom to experiment on our story forms and make them better, more meaningful than TV.
At the same time, I do think TV photographers can teach us new videographers a lot. Compositions of shots, making sure to get enough broll to cover the interviews, getting the right ratio of tight, medium and wide shots, knowing how to edit the shots into a meaningful sequence of events. These are important things that are mandatory for a good visual story.
It’s my personal bias of course, but I think newspaper journalists naturally produce better video stories than TV. Newspaper reporters begin with two advantages — no preconceived notions about time limits, and no preconceived notions about hyping up the story — they are more likely to let the story tell itself and edit it for interest, not time.
You’re right that time is not a constraint, but interest is. That’s a key factor in Web video.
Another advantage we have over television is we need not be constrained by preconceived notions of broadcast quality. We can produce more faster by ditching slavishness to quality and concentrating on more faster.
The whole key to disruption is to be good enough to get the job done.
If you understand anything at all about the long tail, about the power of aggregation, about how people actually use the Web, then you’ll see why this is an important advantage, and why it’s disruptive, if we press it and TV doesn’t catch on.
If you didn’t see my post on five books journalists should read, I recommend using the search box in the upper right and taking a look.
For those in this discussion just looking at the comments, I posted a link in the main post to a post from Jack Lail reacting to my post.
Personally, I’m a believer that the video newspaper sites would be smart to pursue is breaking news footage, rather than focusing exclusively on long documentaries or video packages.
Granted, the long pieces are nice, and they win awards. But I’m of the mind that users are itching to see video of the nearby fire, the plane crash, a city commissioner losing his head at a meeting or any other stuff that would end up on the B section of the paper (without a talking head in the way, mind you).
Unfortunately, the large amount of time it takes to process and upload video is a damper on these efforts. But so is newspaper sites’ lack of initiative to compete on breaking news video. As the technology improves, so will newspaper sites’ competitiveness in this area.
Howard: “The whole key to disruption is to be good enough to get the job done.”
Agreed.
If our news judgment is better than broadcast’s, we’re ahead of the game already. So perhaps worrying about technical quality is a waste of time, and we should focus on content.
Danny hits on a key point …
When we first started video in Ventura, a very smart industry consultant recommended that we concentrate on feature video because it would stay on the site longer and therefore have a better ROI, so that’s what we geared up for in VTA, and is still what they concentrate on.
Since then, what I’ve discovered however is that the average “breaking news” video gets more views in one day than a package video gets over a month.
Now, let’s define breaking news — a term I don’t really like — that is any video associated with a short-shelf-live story … a one-day story, or video shot of a news event, not about a trend or lifestyle item. It needs to be interesting, of course, but it isn’t necessarily an accident or crime story.
Anything that people know will be a quick, interesting visual fix.
This is the kind of video TV isn’t necessarily geared up to do.
As Ryan says, focus on content.
If we do it, and keep doing it, and do it often, we will get better.
Tom, I’m a newspaper guy. Video is no sideshow from where I sit. And it isn’t for a lot of newspaper sites. And it won’t be for even more. It is the future of online journalism.
Broadcast is far, far away from the answer because, from what I see, they still see the Web as just another channel for their broadcast video. The Web is something totally different. Only broadcasters that get that will succeed. I haven’t found a TV news site yet that is doing Web-only video, and very few of them are even serving their video up in Flash. I just don’t see a lot of evidence that TV sites get the web, and the vast majority are totally understaffed and unwilling to spend on the Web.
There are many newspaper Web sites without these disadvantages (not that newspaper.com sites are all that great, even when spending some resources, but they’re not as far behind as most TV stations).
All of their equipment — better off donating it to the Goodwill. It won’t help online. Not now … maybe in a few years.
All you really need online is a point and shoot camera and a copy of iMovie.
Newspapers have better advertising relationship in local than TV. That’s why Yahoo! is partnering with newspapers, not television stations.
YouTube already has figured it out. Great model for newspapers to follow.
[…] Video killed the television star. Howard Owens writes something I’ve ben urging: newspaper video reporting should set its own standards, not rely on video as defined by TV journalism. Via Angela Grant. […]
I’ve been wondering a lot about that lately. I can’t help but think that TV sites are so stupid for not repurposing their video for the web. Does anyone actually watch what they put up? I sure don’t.
On another note, I really don’t understand why newspapers can’t produce things fast that are still good quality. I have no problem going out and shooting for a couple hours, then coming back and editing for a couple hours. Slam bam, you have a high-quality deadline breaking news video.
Angela, when I was looking for a job this summer, I interviewed with a TV station and my recommendation: Hire an online editor to recut just for the Web. But even that is still just seeing the Web as just another broadcast channel, which is analogous to a lot of newspapers just seeing the Web as another publishing platform. Both attitudes are mistakes.
And, too me … taking four hours to produce a video is slow. Thirty minutes is fast, but an hour acceptable, especially if you need to account for drive time.
This may not be how you work, but I’ve seen it happen … 30 minutes drive time, two hours to shoot, 30 minutes drive time, time for lunch, two hours to edit … and you’ve made only one video for the day. And we haven’t even accounted for time for e-mail, talking with the boss, gossiping with co-workers, etc. There goes your 8-hour day, or more. I’d rather have four videos in a day’s work.
We’re talking in abstracts here, but that’s the idea that I’m trying to get at.
Here’s a challenge for you: How can you wedge in one 30 second to 60 second clip in your work day that does nothing more than just add a little extra illustration to a story … a one-angle shot … a one-take shot. Can you fit one of those in every day? No big production. Editing should take no more than five minutes. Use your best camera and your lights and tripod, that’s fine, but keep it simple and production fast.
You have definitely stepped on a toe or two in the tv-tog world. I for one think it’s a good thing. I won’t answer you point for point here. You can catch that flack at my blog
While it is quite possible to be talented at both the written word and visual stroytelling, it is by no means automatic. I go out every day to learn something new from my subjects, my reporter, or my competition. Might I suggest to some who have commented here that before you pen pushers dismiss us tape apes altogether, that you take a look at what we have to offer.
I welcome you to the brave new world of sight and sound. When you need help, if you stop looking down your nose, you’ll find this photog’s hand out. Maybe we can teach each other a thing or two.
Howard – the 30-60 second illustrative video idea is one I love. No stand-up, no credits, no big feature push, just a moving picture right there in the body of the story when the reader clicks Play.
That’s the best use for those little point/shoots with a video button.
Ryan, exactly.
[…] The post was prompted by a post from US TV cameraman Stewart Pittmans (lenslinger) with the ominous title “fish wrap videoâ€. He takes Howard Owens to task for what he sees as myopic arrogance in the face of a “hemorrhaging market shareâ€. He singles out this quote “It’s my personal bias of course, but I think newspaper journalists naturally produce better video stories than TV. Newspaper reporters begin with two advantages — no preconceived notions about time limits, and no preconceived notions about hyping up the story — they are more likely to let the story tell itself and edit it for interest, not time.” […]
Sure, video story illustrations that simply complement the print story have their place. I’ve done plenty of them, and I’m sure I’ll do much more. They add value to the print product.
But think online video should also stand alone as its own storytelling device. It doesn’t need to rely on the print side for meaning. If all we’re doing is complementary video, it could be just as shallow and superficial (or more) as TV. I really don’t think that’s the way to go to aspire to be better than TV.
It’s not about aspiring to be better than TV. It’s about aspiring to BEAT TV.
More is better.
[…] How should Internet video be different than TV? Good question, and you can weigh in your opinion at this post on howardowens.com. […]
[…] For some hint of that, look at this post and this post. […]