Sad news indeed and perhaps some members of FtF have been affected by this as well. The Associated Press did a study of 100 U.S. newspapers and found that most are cutting back from online video due to budgets.
After I read that story and watched the video I read a comment from a guy named Rickr who said the following;
With a comment like;
"I'd rather just read a story rather than have someone else read it to me on a video." You MUST be looking at some different videos than what a majority of video journalists at newspaper shoot and produce man!
Hell yeah I'd get bored as well having to listen to reporters read their stories on a video if that is indeed what you're trying to say here. Personally I don't know of newspapers that actually do that kind of thing. For us it's all about powerful, good and interesting storytelling that MAKES you want to keep watching, be informed, connect and learn something that you might not be able to in a print story.
For a real education Rickr, look for videos done at newspaper websites and done the right way. Check them out athttp://www.findingtheframe.com/
Lots of quality work from many different video journalists from around the country along with discussion, dialogue, critiques all in an effort to make everyone better.
Hopefully Rickr will look at FtF and be impressed with the quality of the work done by you guys!! :-)
Thanks Eric for the response to "Rickr." I found this story disheartening, but not something that I did not already know. My newspaper is one that has pulled back--for now.
Maybe rickr was being harsh, but he has a point. While not exactly a reporter reading to a camera, an awful lot of video out there is little better. I've argued for a long time that if we bombard viewers with crap, they'll tune out. Rickr is evidence of that. If we can produce quality, engaging stories with regularity, our viewers will come to expect it.
Rickr only has a point for those video journalist or those that think they are who really don't have a clue or care how to tell a story and keep the viewers interest.
I agree Peter, the stories need to be thought out. Not everything that works in print will make a good video. The story needs to give the viewer a reason to watch and the production needs to keep them watching.
So true. One thing that bothers me are those who think that quantity is more important than quality. I'm so opposed to having videos online for the sake of having them. When resources are scarce at newspapers serious though MUST be given to what works and what doesn't. Too many traditional print journalists photogrpahers, writers and editors alike, still don't take online video storytelling seriously. The result is lack of resources including time dedicated to producing quailty work. "Quck hit" news clips just don't cut it. If viewers like, want and watch breaking news stories, for eg., then put the time and resources into doing it well.
Has anybody here had success showing their work outside the newspaper's site? Any screenings at coffee shops? Independent movie theaters? Your backyard with a sheet and a projector?
Good point, Adam. One person I know had at least one of his pieces shown at the Toronto International Film Festival couple years ago. As for myself, when I returned from covering the Haiti earthquake the paper had kind of town paid hall thing at a theatre with members of the public. My colleague and I presented, and fielded questions the paper was shown during the event. The funds went to Haiti rebuilding efforts.I was also asked to submit a few pieces to this Online Film Festival by http://www.cultureunplugged.com/ a site which some of you might find useful. Some WICKED stuff there man!But what if some of the stuff we produce was made available for sale on DVD, just like we offer pictures for resale? Is anyone doing it? TV does it regularly.
At our newspaper, we're investing in video. We just recently starting sharing a newsroom with the local NBC affiliate. It's going pretty well. The newspaper photogs now have an additional outlet to show our videos and a staff of videographers to help us along.. The station has been really interested in the kinds of stories we like to do. A lot of my videos tend to come from community feature stories, the kind of stuff they might not have the resources to spare a photog for. For a little more investment in time, the paper gets stills for a print story and a video for the web and TV.
Phil, we offer our videos for sale on DVD. We don't do a ton of them, mostly parents of high school athletes, or the subjects of the videos themselves. It's not a huge money-maker. It's also a bit of a pain, since as far as I know there's no fulfillment service like myCapture that we use for photo sales. That means I have to do all of the customer service and fulfillment (DVD burning, packaging) myself. Enough people requested copies that we decided to sell them, but I'd be a lot happier if there were an easier way.We've been talking for quite a while about looking for alternative outlets, but in the end, what we really want is the traffic to the website. Showing at a local theater or a film festival is a nice bit of promotion, but it's hard to imagine a real increase in traffic from those. If anyone has had success, I'd love to hear about it.
I recently graduated and throughout the 4 years of school I interned every semester at a publication or newspaper struggling to adapt video. Many of them struggled with getting people to watch these videos buried deep within the publications website. With maybe only a blurb in the magazine or newspaper directing people to their website I can definitely see how these expensive to produce pieces get almost no views. That plus a 15-30 second ad and archaic viewer window would most certainly turn me off from watching a video. I feel these companies are technologically always two steps behind the guy posting a viral cat video and if they would just embrace the internet as their friend the future for cutting edge video journalism would be much brighter.Yes, I know lots of people will argue that print journalism has made great strides as far as web content, but the largest magazines and newspapers in the country are still run by fairly old fashioned editors who don't even know what a double rainbow is (currently at 25.6 million views).