Can This Work?

SoSueMe - That is pretty strange that your paper wants videos, but they aren't promoting your Web site.
Our paper promotes the Web site at will in the section and has started doing online-only stories and agate as well. We also recently instituted the plan of putting full stories online the second they are done and not worrying about "giving" information to the other media entities in town.

Now they ask for video, which I can understand to some degree because we are going hard at improving our Web site. We are also launching a high school Web site in three weeks.

So, while I am mildly bitter about the video thing, at least my paper is going all out to try and improve the Web sites and not doing what your paper is doing, which sucks.

 

Angola, it just illustrates how clueless some paper conglomorates are.

They want new ideas but can't even max out the ones in front of them.

That's partly why I don't want to/think we should do anything new or different until we, as a business, can manage and fix what we already have.

It's all knee-jerk reaction.

 

A longtime TV reporter was hired by the paper long ago as a community news editor then assigned as the online editor.

Naturally, the only thing she sees for the Web site is video. Video video video. So they buy her some equipment and some editing software. She asks to see budgets so she can determine if anything would make good video fodder. She shoots and edits herself. Great! No extra work for us.

Then we noticed a pattern. As far as sports was concerned, she didn't want to do anything after 5 p.m. It's not anything she said, but we noticed that if it happened after 5 p.m. then she wouldn't do it. Wouldn't do anything on Saturdays either. Now it's being suggested that we do the work if we want stuff that happens after 5 p.m. Her idea of online sports is a bunch of coaches' shows. Talk shows for the juco and high school coaches. What kind of online sports section would we have with zero action footage and nothing but guys sitting around? Lame.

And just because of the absurdity: She suggested using these really cool animated graphics where two football helmets would crash together and explode as the lead-in to the footage. Yeah, that was cool almost 20 years ago.

Now they're pushing an online stats program similar to MaxPreps.com with the expectations that coaches will keep the info updated. Considering most have to be brow beaten to send a schedule and call a score in, I'm sure this will fail.

Breaking news online is great. Blogs are great. Extra photos in a gallery are great. But there needs to be a line drawn when it comes to the bullshit.

I'm a writer. I'm not a videographer. I'm not doing two jobs for the price of one. And if they want to replace me with somebody who will eat the shit sandwich of being forced to do the writer workload plus extra work (all in a "40" hour week), then they can take this job and shove it up their asses. It's not like this is the only profession in the world, and I'm getting sick of my employers not knowing what the fuck they want.

 

I've heard of this situation. Gotta say, I agree with newspapers setting out to use their Web sites for more than just BLOGS!

The major J-schools are already developing curriculum that attempts to teach the ability to do writing, photo, audio and video for the Web. I'm sure you all have heard of "convergence." And while some here speak of having gone to school to be "a print journalist!!" the next generation now has the option to learn this convergence stuff and put themselves in position to get jobs with the companies who think this is the next big thing.

Sure, there can be questions of efficiency and quality of work. But some people will focus on what they are best at, with the knowledge to help do the rest in a pinch. There are many outlets which see the success stories with multimedia reporting - conveniently forgetting that the biggest successes come in places where the local TV stations and the newspaper have quite a symbiotic relationship, often due to shared ownership - and want a piece of that for themselves. They see it as a chance to further cut the workforce. It's happening in TV too, as reporters hear rumblings that soon they will need to brush up on their camera skills.

And with youngsters coming up who have specifically trained to do these many tasks for many platforms, it is reckless job-wise to stand up on a high horse and refuse to try. Unless you've already laid the groundwork for other opportunities, of course.

Years ago, there were more of us who were able to specialize. Writers wrote, copy editors did not, designers pieced together pages. How many job ads do you see now where skills in all three are sought? Aside from the cream of the crop, at the cream of the crop papers, we are already regularly asked to multi-task. Yes, video is not the same logical progression that making a writer a copy editor is, but this is what more and more outlets are seeing as the future.

 

Norrin

Convergence is the WORST THING to happen to this business and school. No matter how you slice it, you will have half-assed stories, half-assed video and half-assed photos if you have someone trying to do all three at once - or at the least, two things at one.

All convergence does is make more work and inferior product for everyone. And grads walk into newspapers saying "oh, I'm just so happy I have a job," and volunteering to, as Meat Loaf so eloquently put it "eat shit sandwiches."

Tell me, how am I supposed to both capture the game-winning touchdown for a photo and still see enough detail to write about it, too.

You CANNOT see the entire field through a lens - video or camera.

This is precisely why our "new products" suck. No one area gets the attention it deserves so you have a second-rate photo because you're not shooting every play and you have a second-rate story because you have missed details because you're watching through a lens.

Case in point: I was at a football game Saturday. I was shooting photos and supposed to be writing the story. Home team scores a 102-yard touchdown - but I have no idea how. Why? Because I was busy shooting a receiver assuming it was going to be a pass play - and it was. A two-yard hitch pass to the running back who broke it open. I had to turn to a parent from the other team who was shooting photos of his receiver son and say "was that a pass or run?"

Until we produce well-written stories for both print AND the net, photos, including galleries on the net, and videos done by someone trained in the craft and post those vids to the net, all three areas and both the printed product and net facets will read like a high school paper and look like youtube.

Christ, even the auto autoworkers at assembly plants, which I worked in for four years during school, only have ONE JOB and they do that ONE JOB for years. You know why? Because it's efficient and they get done right minimizing mistakes.

 

Our photographers shoot 90 percent of the video for us, but we have a couple reporters who enjoy doing it and seek out opportunities on their own. I'm not aware of any reporters who have been forced to do it here -- some people would like to do it more but don't have the time, a couple people have tried it once and said it's not for them, and haven't had to do it again. Most of them haven't done any video at all. The whole gamut.

Our problem for a while here wasn't getting too little video; it was getting too much uninteresting video - almost like the site was a dumping ground for every half-baked idea. After various talks with editors and the photo dept. showing them traffic numbers and how people won't click on any video just because it's a video, the efforts have been more efficient, and with better production.

 

Luckily, I was trained in college for this kind of thing, using fancy editing equipment for video and audio. When I got to my job they had just really started pushing video and their website, which I've been very impressed with.

The ME and higher-ups have been very supportive of doing video, but don't give us crap if we don't. They usually like it if we bring a small picture/video camera for our feature stories, if it won't hinder us.

All this has become incredibly helpful the past couple weeks with the tragedy in Fairport, NY (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6739940,00.html). It was right in the middle of our coverage area and the reaction to getting video of kids and families online has been amazing. For stories like that, it's hard to qualify just how helpful the video is.

Sadly, this is part of the future of the industry, whether we shoot the video or not. I'm really glad that I know how to do it because I'm sure that when I start looking for that next gig, it'll help to have "videographer" on my resume.

 

I want to make something clear: I am not - repeat NOT - against using video to bolster newspapers websites. I am however against asking reporters to shoot the footage.

I have no problem hiring someone to focus on the video aspect.

A few of us were talking yesterday, and we just had someone leave our newsroom and we have no problem losing a print reporter in favour of a video journalist who is good and knows what they are doing. If it doesn't work out (as in, doesn't create more traffic, receives poor feedback, etc) get rid of them and re-hire a print person.

 

JD, with all due respect, it is not weak. If you're asked to do more, you should be paid more. The wages in this business, for the most part, are low enough as it is. Making you do two jobs instead of one with no chance of additional pay is patently wrong. If you're willing to be taken advantage of that way, be my guest. But if you're splitting time between generating text and generating video, you'll likely not do either exceedingly well.

 

I recently did some video for our Web site. It was my first experience with it, and it was actually somewhat exciting. However, we have a full-time video guy who shot the video, got the sound and edited it all. I was just the talent.

 

That's a great point. It's funny that as we're asked to do more (pictures then blogging now video) the pay is staying the same. That's convergence, baby.

 

Somehow I missed this response, but since it's directed at me, I'll answer.

Hey, sure, I got hired to flip dough. But you know what? If I sweep the floors, I do it at the end of my shift and get paid to do it. I'm not asked to do both at the same time. And, chances are, when I was interviewed the boss he said, "So, SoSueMe, when there are no orders or the pizzas are in the oven, you'll have to sweep floors."

And I said, "Sure."

Now, if I'm sweeping floors and burning pizzas at the same time then we have a problem don't we? Kind of like if I only get once source for a story because, while I was setting up my video camera to talk to the coach, the quarterback who just threw three interceptions and no touchdowns quickly sneaked out the back door.

I can put this in even more real terms. I was a bartender in college. For five or six hours I'd serve drinks - lots of them. Then, when last call was made, I'd stock the fridges, sweep the floors, clean the bar, mop the floors and then - ready for it? - PUNCH OUT. Every other Thursday, I got a paycheck.

Now, since I'm using bartending as another example, remember that many 'tenders make the majority of their tips - and the bar keeps the majority of their customers - because of prompt and entertaining service. What do you think happens if I sweep the floors for an hour at 10 p.m. when there are 50 people lining up for drinks? They leave and don't come back.

Get it yet?

You people who think you can do three things - THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS - well at once kill me. You CANNOT write the best story, take the best photo and tape the best video you possibly can when you're trying to do all three at one assignment.

When all three suck, your paper sucks.

When your paper sucks, your ciruclation sucks.

When you circulation sucks, your ad revenue sucks.

And then, readers to Yahoo! AOL, the AP and ESPN.com where they can - ready for it again? - get STORIES FROM PEOPLE WHO WRITE ONLY.

This, my friends, is the future of the business.