Can This Work?

Before I go on, let it be known I don't think it can.

Our newspaper is considering having its reporters shoot video now, for our website. Video complete with commentary and interviews.

One question: How can this possibly work?
Another question: How can our printed product not suffer?

I'm already asked to shoot photos and write the stories, now I may have to shoot video and conduct interviews for the footage? Unreal.

 

Our paper brought up that idea before, and it was immediately shot down by the reporters. Way too much extra work for the reporter and would be VERY annoying to the person being interviewed.

Our photogs, though, have shot video and uploaded it on our web site. They enjoy that stuff, so it wasn't a bad transition.

 

Why can't PRINT PUBLICATIONS focus their time, money, resources and energy on making the PRINTED PRODUCT the best it can be?

 

We're headed in that direction, though nobody but the bosses seems happy about it, or thinks it's a good idea.
I can see instances, like with some feature stories, where video can be a nice addition to the story. But I have zero desire to be the one shooting it.

 

I used to do it until I stood up and told my editor that it was not worth it.

When I did do it, I lost sleep dreading it.

To me, it's a photogs job, and when getting quotes, it's hard to grasp what they are saying with a little camera in their face. It feels more like an interrogation than an interview.

So are the times, I guess, having reporters do three jobs instead of one, which I think kills the print aspect of things.

If you want me to cover the hell out of something, let me write. If you want shitty video with a story that could be a lot better if I didn't have to worry about it, give me a camera.

And most of the people I talk to say that their computers don't even play the video.

Jesus Lord!!!

I love this job. I hate this job.

 

My paper is beginning to implement the same thing. I don't think our higher-ups realize what a burden that will be on the reporter and just how much time is spent editing film. My guess - it lasts a few weeks then falls out.

 

Will every reporter have their own editing equipment? Seriously, managment clearly doesn't understand time and resource committments to make this happen. Breaking news absolutely, but some thought must go into whether enough people might watch a video before commiting to the time it would take.

 

mojo,
I think you hit it right on the head with one of your comments... a lot of people don't have super fast computers or super fast internet connections to load videos in reasonable amounts of time... Sure, the number of people with accessability is growing all the time, but, even personally, my laptop is pretty darn new, and it often takes too long to load something. I get frustrated and move on before it finishes. Is that what we want our readers to do?

 

You should suggest he uses UGC for the video. Editors like that a lot, too, these days.

 

We just got a new video camera at the paper a few weeks ago and have since uploaded one video feature on the News side.

I was just told by our D-I college football beat reporter that he was asked/told by our ME to be prepared to shoot video of the team. He's already had a bunch of extra web-related responsibilities thrown at him in the last year, and his plate just keeps getting fuller.

This will not end well.

 

My paper is implementing video this fall. Some has been done already by photogs, but we were told recently that reporters would have to shoot as well.
During football they said they don't want game action, they want interviews, but I write during interviews, not record so I don't see how that will work.
Anyway, it shall be interesting this fall to see how things will shake out.

 

I agree that video should be the photographer's job. Let them shoot their still photos early in the game and then join the reporter in the locker room afterwards to shoot video of interviews. Why would this not work?