Can This Work?

i don't want to come off as an advocate for this idea because there are times when i don't think it's feasible to give a reporter a video camera, especially when covering games on deadline. there is a place for it though, especially if you have been given time to write a 30-40 inch feature.

michael, i certainly respect your opinion, but i'm going to disagree a bit. first off, i'm not sure anyone has a firm handle on where this business going, online or in print. in the mid-'90s, there were people who thought the internet was a fad and some to this day who still resist. that's fine for those near the end or at least can see retirement. i have another 25 years to go.

i also disagree about turning it another local newscast. take oakland county, michigan, a nice suburban area outside of detroit. the detroit tv stations don't cover oakland county preps or the school board meeting or the city council meeting, unless there's some big to-do. but of the everyday matters that concern oakland county citizens, including coverage of preps, detroit's tv stations aren't there.

there is a place for video of your local news coverage online. i don't agree with doing more with less. that seems to be the issue here.

 

Dear Funky: Excellent points. There probably is a market for video coverage of regions that are ignored by their major TV markets. New England has an entire cable news network, which of course is mostly about Boston, but not all about it. I didn't cover a high school football game from 2000-2005 that wasn't being broadcast/recorded by one and usually two local access cable channels. So the demand exists, no doubt about it.
But I think your final point about giving reporters two full-time jobs to execute simulaneously is more valid. That doesn't work in any business. Quality and price, not format, decide what forms of information survive as commodities and which don't. If the industry has decided to keep its Internet offerings free, an issue for another day, then the quality of what's offered is of paramount importance.
To conclude. If a paper wants to send TWO reporters to one event, one for video, one for words, fine. As a consumer, which is the end of the stick I have these days, I benefit. If it sends one person to do both, as it will, then I, the consumer, lose, no matter which product I choose.

 

The bottom line: If newspaper readership/revenues are declining, and online revenues/views are on the rise, it makes sense that execs will try to figure out ways to capitalize on that audience and drive page views.

Saying "We'll put more video on the website" is a stock answer, much like saying, "We need more enterprise in the paper." But like anything new, they're struggling to figure out the best way to go about this, and what exactly will work on the web.

Execs are going to have to make some hard decisions, and make sacrifices to the print product in order to dedicate resources to the web.

Rather than sending three photographers out to shoot photos on a Friday night, why not have one of them dedicated to shooting atmosphere video (and not the same highlights you'll see on the local news)? If you're doing a story on an athlete rehabbing a knee injury, why not have the photog shoot video of his rehab? Or, if only two photos run in print, why not put together an online gallery? Why send a reporter to do a 12'' sidebar on a college/pro game, when they can be doing web-specific content?

I agree with an earlier poster who said we work for news organizations, not just newspapers. And it's going to take the progressive editors who are willing to make difficult decisions regarding print vs. web, to effect these changes.

 

Problem with video is that it takes a lot of time to shoot and edit for usually very little payoff.

Something that really gets a lot of hits would almost have to be a happy accident.

It's better for papers to train a handful of folks and send them out to the most promising assignments. To hand Joe Blow reporter a camera worth $5,000 and tell him good luck is not the best way to go about it.

 

Not to come off as having an attitude problem (I very well might, but that's for another thread) but if I'm going to be a more valuable employee this way, they need to be prepared to pay me more. Sorry, I signed on to be a writer. If they want videographers, they should hire people for that.

 

Give newspapers 20 years and maybe they'll think to hire content producers for the web site with some idea of how the internets work.

 

what is that supposed to mean? is this question a joke?

just keep your big paint brush away from my armpit. i'm ticklish there.

maybe they'll hire someone that can do both.

hasn't anybody every heard of the word multitalented? am i the only one who played three sports? the only one who took a photojournalism class in college?

this "i'm a writer, not a videographer" stuff is weak. things change. you adapt with them.

so you accepted a job a the pizza place so you could flip the dough in the air. surprise! — you also have to sweep the floor, cook the food, make deliveries and clean the grease trap.

"but all i want to do is flip the dough."

tell that to all the people who just got laid off.

 

If you were hired to sell refrigerators at Sears and then were told that you need to spend 6 hours of your shift sweeping the floor, you'd probably not sell many refrigerators.

So if you are a writer and told to produce a video a day and that took 4-6 hours, that might tend to cut into your time you need to write. So adapting isn't such an easy thing there, sharpshooter.

 

I think you nailed it. Good work. I go make pizza now, kthxbye.

 

look, been there, dude. the first journo job i had was to report the college beat. a couple months and three firings/quittings later, i was the lone paginatior in the two-person sports dept and was still expected to cover my beat. i was miserable for six months and hated the experience. not enough time to write.

but if you ask me at the job i have now if i can squeeze some time for shooting video and still write a gamer or a feature or whatever? i say yes. six hours worth? definitely no. but one hour worth. hell yes.

one shift at the crap job, i covered a 7 p.m. basketball game, laid out 8 pages and redesigned the sports front after 10 p.m. on the night of the artest brawl. it wasn't great work, but it got done.

don't take that graf as braggadocio. i'm just saying, i've done the bait-and-switch job. and lugging around a video camera once in a while doesn't sound that bad. and if it helps keep me doing what i love — reporting — instead of getting laid off or going back to pizza or even worse, PR, i'll do it.

i'm not suggesting to take on a whole other full-time job here. but i can shoot some interviews. maybe even shoot video of the winning field goal. or touchdown. or shot. or celebration. or the county 100-meter dash final. you don't have to document an entire event to get compelling stuff.

the tv news flubs it because they send some bozo there for 10 minutes and he leaves, hands out his card and begs people to call in the final score.

but i know for damn sure that i can hit up a game, pick the right five minutes to turn on the video camera, write the story then upload the video all within my normal shift.

of course there's a point that you put your foot down and say no more duties. but if someone tells me to do what i described above or i can go home and work on my first novel, i'll do it. plus, it kind of sounds like fun.

 

Who would ever do such a thing?

 

nobody i know. it would be a dick thing to do.