• September 25.2008

How much video? Part 1 – The 2007 boom

Posted by Jean Yves Chainon on January 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Video, video, video. In 2007, the ‘V’ word was the new craze for newspapers internationally. And this is bound to continue in 2008. But just how much video should newspapers seek? Is it an optional plus, should all reporters be assigned to capture video, or should a newsroom even have its in-house studio? In Part 1, we take a look at several examples of how newspapers have included video.

 
How much video? Part 1 – The 2007 boom
How much video? Part 2 – Figaro, from Handycam to in-house studio
How much video? Part 3 – Nouvel Obs: TV-like shows, with an edge – a year in retrospect


First, for those not convinced by the use of video to enhance word-based storytelling, take a look at this engaging piece by Gene Weingarten, about a world-class musician who plays the violin in the subway and nobody notices. The article was published in the Washington Post’s Sunday magazine in April, as well as online with video.

As you’ll see, it "was more effective online than it was in print. I'm not sure that happens all the time, but it happens more and more now as we figure out how to use video as an adjunct to a story," said Weingarten.

Take a look at some forward-thinking US examples in this recent piece by the American Journalism Review about the newspaper video boom. Just recently, the Financial Times announced a deal with Reuters to boost its video offerings. Some papers have even developed platforms for users to post their videos, such as The Orange County Register in the US, or Aftonbladet in Norway. Newspapers and traditional media are striking deals with video sharing platforms, such as Daily Motion, to make their video content more visible. The German local paper Volksfreund chose to launch its very own online local TV channel, Volskfreund.TV.

But enough about the video boom. Nobody denies it, few haven’t embraced it, although some still aren’t convinced video is within newspapers’ realm. “What's worse is producing that crappy video probably required a large portion of the day for an entire group of people. Video is not within newspaper editors' core competency,” wrote Lucas Grindley, Content Manager for the Herald Tribune, in his blog.

But everybody’s still figuring out the dos and donts of video. And it seems Grindley’s approach is out of line with the current definition of newspapers’ core competency: delivering content to the audience in whichever medium suits best the story, on whichever platform and time suits best the audience. The question for editors is not whether or not, but how to implement the seventh art within their newsroom, and how much importance – and consequently, time and money – they should give to it.


In part 2, we’ll take a look at how Le Figaro has implemented video thus far, and its current construction of a video studio within its building.

Posted in :

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How much video? Part 1 – The 2007 boom.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5959

Leave a comment