Video on the making of the Sunday Washington Post sports section

As somebody who works in tv, I don't get what you're saying.

I don't think anybody here thought it was a "documentary" or that journalists were the intended target audience.

I didn't expect to learn conception to production in 4 minutes, but why not include the most compelling 4 minutes? I hope the Post doesn't think it's great.

 

Fixed.

 

Exactly. That video showed me nothing about how a sports desk works or really the kind of pressure/problems that the people face. Not that anything that happens in a newsroom is all that exciting to watch (it is just people sitting in front of computers, after all), but how about showing them having to tear up a page on deadline, or discussing the main hed on the front, or having to somehow fit 40 inches of copy into a 20 inch hole. Anything would be more exciting than watching the color proofer. And identifying the people would've been helpful too. The behind-the-scene idea was good, but the approach was just awful. It really could've used some narration and better editing to build a semblance of a storyline, with conflicts and resolutions, instead of just a collection of tidbits that don't give you an idea of how each of the scene you saw fits in the big picture.

 

To quote the captain, Exactly.

I keep thinking something was left out, that somewhere surely there's an intro explaining what we're about to see.

And, Mr. Fish, I still don't know a "cut-up of a promo" is.

 

Yeah. I'm sure there's a real appetite for the inside workings of a sports desk. I really want to know how the that NBA roundup comes together. I'm really interested in the allocation of agate space. I'm really interested in the minutiae that is the putting out a newspaper. That would about bore the "F" of the "F" key.
Instead they chose to deliver some anecdotes for a general audience with an in-house videographer.
I'm not sure of the criticism. What's the big deal? This board -- and its posters -- often takes a critical look, critically of criticism. It's too much, sometimes.

It (probably) was done at the behest -- or in conjunction with -- the Phillip Merrill College. And edited from there.

 

That explains it.

Some of the b-roll shots could've been shot in a much more compelling way, and why were some of the interviews shot so wide? Sound bites have the potential to bore the viewer, so you usually want to get tight on the person's face unless there's a reason to go wide.

Especially for a story about deadlines and pressure -- I would think tighter would be better than slouched against a desk.

I could go on and on... but I'll simply say that there are Emmy winning cameramen in my shop who could shoot paper coming out of a printer in such a way that would make you weep.

 

By "they," you mean the Post itself did the piece? Working with UMd? So what's the Comcast credit about? Not that I care a whit, other than it was just done so weirdly not to mention poorly.

A "cut-up of a promo" goes unanswered. OK. Answer me this then: What do you mean in saying posters here often take "a critical look, critically of criticism"?

 

I'm not sure the problem. I just answered your question in the previous post.
An edited piece intended for promotional or educational purposes.

If this is a real burning issue, pick up an APSE guide.

 

Sorry to have provoked you into cryptograms. Won't happen again.

 

No. No. No. That's not the case.
I don't have specific knowledge of Emilio's -- or the dept.'s -- work on this video or its purpose. Did it fall short of its intended purpose? Who knows? Without knowing its intended purpose.
I know we do similar projects. Some associated with the university, some not. Some sponsored by fellowships and/or scholarships, some not.
The point is, this board became highly critical of some of the best journalists (one with a Pulitzer in a closet somewhere) in the country over 4:23 minutes of video that was probably throw-away. Done, probably, as part of an in-house promo or university project.
Now do you see why I was bothered?

 

OK, one more:

All I saw were people critical of the piece, not the journalists' work.

BTW, saw no Pulitzer winner. Did see Garcia-Ruiz, once George Dohrmann's SE. Who's the Pulitzer-in-his-closet guy?