This is what newspapers are losing out to online

I get your point, Lug, but most newspapers tell their employees that by doing video, they're not trying to be or compete with TV. Just trying to get an extra component to go with the written story and have something that they can tease in print to drive people to the Web site. Our shop got FlipCams a couple months ago and that's changed the game even more with video quality. It's more of just cutting your own voice out of interviews and intro-ing it just to say "So and so talking about the game". I think the difference between newspapers doing videos and TV stations writing stories for Web is that the TV stations seem to be doing it for the sake of the key words showing up in searches, we're doing video so that you're getting something on the Web site other than what you get in print. Just my $ .02.

 

If you're going to do something, why not try to do it well instead of just throwing out crap as an extra component for site hits?

"Just be good enough" isn't a standard worth pursuing. If a newspaper is going to require their reporters to shoot video, take the time to teach them about it well enough to produce something good. Handing a guy a Flip and the the instructions along with "Just ask a few questions and shoot the video" is half-assing it.

 

I enjoyed both your posts and get what you're saying... But I could not agree with SixToe more.

I mean, is the goal to get people to actually click? If not, it's a waste of your time and the paper's money.

 

I think some people are missing the point here.
Unlike the 180-degree rule or whatever the hell it is, proper use of grammar and proper spelling are not advanced skills. They're things everybody should have learned in fifth grade or earlier. To equate substandard video techniques and illiteracy is quite a reach.
Nobody's berating the author of the above-mentioned thing in St. Louis because the work is short of Pulitzer standard. They're justifiably berating the author because the work is short of grade-school standard.

 

I would bet anything the author of that is an unpaid intern.

Like PC said, most of the time, those kinds of stories are package scripts simply transcribed-- because TV stations are so lean and mean, nobody has the time or money to do anything else.

And transcriptions typically cost nothing because TV stations are required by law to transcribe through a service anyway for closed captioning.

And honestly, if you're writing for TV and all your scripts are done with complete sentences, you're not doing it right.

But yes, what's written there is atrocious... and I'm sure the high school kid feels bad about it.

 

One of the major newsroom software systems will even take a TV script and automatically convert it to a (somewhat) newspaper-style format and post it to the web. The problem, of course, is that the writing is still totally different -- particularly if we're talking about a sports anchor. They generally write their own copy and know that no one else will ever read it, so it can often be incomprehensible to anyone else.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just telling the truth. It'd be great if someone with a TV background was in charge of video at my paper and trained everyone to the fullest, but that's a pipe dream.

 

You'd logically think a newspaper wanting staffers to shoot video would hire a good consultant for a few weeks and then on a periodic basis or hire a television production person as a full-time staffer.

Additionally, instead of having two reporters sitting on a desk for video why not build a small set somewhere in the newsroom? Not an "anchor desk" like the 6 o'clock news or some Plexiglass box that looks like their in a bubble, but something casual yet in good taste. Joe and Larry standing in the newsroom discussing the big game around looks amateurish. Having them sit in a featureless room in front of a bland wall looks equally bad.

In the rush to propel reporters to blog, shoot video, do radio and whatever else, the quality has lapsed. Newspapers don't half-ass a big redesign. Why do it for other components that may be here to stay?

 

http://terryfoster.blogspot.com/