When it comes to newspaper video, focus on the bigger picture
By William M. Hartnett on Aug 13, 2007 in featured, newspapers
Interesting thoughts on newspaper video today from Patrick Thornton (Video does not equal new media) and Ryan Sholin (Why shoot newspaper video?). On the specific issue of newspaper video, for largely practical reasons, I suppose I lean more toward Ryan’s concept of “FasterMore.” But, mainly, I’d hate to see us get distracted arguing over this single piece of the web puzzle.
While forward-thinking media bloggers don’t generally take a narrow, single-issue view of our digital future, some of the managers actually in charge of our newsrooms do. So, while I’m sure that no one checking in around these parts would consider video alone to be a web “strategy,” some folks out there still pulling the strings very well might be inclined to do so.
There’s no logic to that, but bureaucracies, newsroom or otherwise, are hardly fueled by logic, particularly when their very survival is imperiled. In that case, I think the tendency for most is to focus very narrowly on the path being taken by the rest of the herd. Right now, the herd is thundering toward video, in some cases blindly, without standards by which to measure success and, even more troublesomely, at the expense of other pieces of the digital puzzle.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Patrick’s broader point was that our sites have to go deep if we’re going to become true communities, as opposed to mere destinations for news, and that video alone, FasterMore or BiggerBetter, isn’t going get us there.
So, whether you’re making the case for FasterMore, BiggerBetter or some hybrid approach to video at your newspaper, don’t forget to remind everyone that we can’t merely shoot our way to the future. To truly compete on the web, we have to be truly of the web. And to be truly of the web, we have to value, develop and acquire the spirit and advanced skills necessary to develop the frameworks on which we’ll build our video players, data-powered tools, interactive features, social gizmos and uniquely fine-grained local information.
Yes, I’m talking about programming. Again. This time, I’ll just leave it at that.
Ryan Sholin | Aug 13, 2007 | Reply
Right, so then if we at a small local paper ask the question “Why don’t we build evergreen dynamic databases out of public records?”
The answer is: Because we don’t have the money to hire the developer, or the developer doesn’t have the skills, or the reporters don’t have time for the training, etc.
Apply the same Q/A to cool interactive Flash graphics. We can’t all play New York Times.
But yeah, it would be nice to have a programmer around…
William M. Hartnett | Aug 13, 2007 | Reply
Ah yes, reality. It’s been ruining all my best viewpoints for 30 years now.
It looks like your corporate overlords have signed on with an easy-to-use database publishing platform, at least.
With newsrooms shrinking, people way above our pay grade have to set new priorities for their remaining positions. Every copy editor, photographer or middle management departure is another opportunity to hire a programmer. The folks at the wheel just need to be persuaded to seize those chances.
And if they won’t … Well, I know of a certain privately owned newspaper in South Florida (where amazing but, sadly, still incredibly secret things are cooking) that would be more than happy to receive your resume!
Pat | Aug 13, 2007 | Reply
My main point of my post is that paper’s shouldn’t be focusing on video as the primary form of “new media.” Whether or not you go the BiggerBetter route or the FasterMore is ultimately irrelevant if you think video will someone how make you new media. It won’t.
I would have to see FasterMore in action to say how I feel about it, but I know a lot video that smaller newspapers put on the Web is garbage and not worth anyone’s time.
Now you don’t need an HD camera or Final Cut Pro to do video well. But you do need journalists who know how to shoot video (this means training). One of the biggest problems I see with video by newspaper is that it is often fluff. It’s barely journalism.
That’s because papers have sent out random reporters with random cameras and told them to capture stuff.
They need to approach grabbing video the same way they approach stories — with a purpose. I think you can achieve that with FasterMore.
I disagree with Ryan that papers can’t hire programmers. A good entry-level programmer might set you back $50,000. Most newspapers under 100,000 circulation have people that make that much or more. Maybe you need to get rid of one of those positions or fill two writing positions with a database programmer.
It’s all about choices and decisions. The problem is that most papers aren’t willing to cut some traditional print positions to make way for Web positions. Hiring a flash person and a programmer is a must for all papers.
Lawrence Journal World did it. So did Naples News. Neither is a big operation.
It takes guts to make it on the Web. That’s what those papers have. Most newspapers and their top editors are spineless.
And probably clueless.
Howard Owens | Aug 14, 2007 | Reply
William, I think the “video only” type of leader is really a pretty small minority, that person even exists, because if you’re advanced enough in your thinking to even see an opportunity in video, you probably also know something about blogs and Flash and ChicagoCrimes.org.
Though, I have met a few newsroom editors who think the only “interactive” thing they should be doing is Flash or SoundSlides because those tools make them feel like they’re extending their print journalism, not just going in a new direction.
But I know the digital media leaders of just about every significant newspaper chain in the country, and all of them are pretty darn smart and have been doing this stuff a long time, long before there was much in the way of video on the web.
And most of the smaller chains, where I know people, the primary attitude is, “We can’t afford this web stuff, and our audience doesn’t care, so we’ll just slap our stories up on TownNews and call it a day.” This types of publishers balk at buying even one P&S camera for their newsroom.
BTW: for a small or mid-sized paper, hiring a $50K programmer is the easy stuff — it’s having enough understanding about the web to use him right that scares editors and publishers, plus providing the infrastructure to support such a hire that scares them — and there are so many decisions to make … what programming languages can and should you support, because once you make that choice, you may be living with it for a long time, meaning the next guy you hire has to write in the same language/environment, or you’ve got to go through the pain and expense of hiring … and what if the guy you hire doesn’t document his code?
It’s more than just a money issue.
I could go on, but the point I’m getting at is this is all a lot more nuanced than has been discussed so far.
William M. Hartnett | Aug 14, 2007 | Reply
I’ve never doubted that the people at the top of our corporate digital heaps are intelligent folks with enlightened viewpoints and what, from 35,000 feet, must seem like perfectly clear strategic visions. But implementation of those plans happens at sea level, of course, where attitudes and, frankly, leadership abilities, vary widely.
Gazing skyward with craned neck and squinted eye, there’s definitely the perception down here that, as Mindy McAdams described it in a comment on Pat Thornton’s post, “… all the newspaper execs must have gone to the same conference where someone told them they all ‘had to’ do online video. And like robots, they accepted that command and ran home and made everyone start doing video, willy-nilly.”
And, having just helped shepherd a proposal that involved, among other things, requirements for a web developer, platform specs, etc., I’m familiar with at least some of the nuance involved. Though, I would suggest that those issues aren’t quite totally wide open if an organization is dedicated to identifying and using the absolute best skills and tools for a specific job. That, of course, means hiring the right programmer, not just A programmer.