Video Reporting

That's what I'll call it. There's probably a better term, but I don't know what it would be.

A fledgling Web entity asked me if I could shoot video for them a few months ago. Last week, I did a quick voice over for a newspaper. The photog shot some video and wanted to get my reporter's angle. I obliged, but I was somewhat awe-stricken. I knew the paper was going more toward its web presence with video and other features. It just never occurred to me that I might have to speak, rather than write.

Now that same paper is inquiring about stringers who can shoot video, presumably of high school football games.

I don't have a beef, really. I'm just interested in the topic. As someone who doesn't own a video camera, I don't know the first thing about today's technology. I took a single TV editing course in college, and we still had VHS tapes in the camera. It seems that photogs are doing the actual filming, but they have reporters doing a lot of the video reporting. Is adding this extra work going to upset some folks? And how much would a freelancer charge for video? Is there some sort of scale?

 

Some papers want the reporter to write a story, put a recording of an interview on its website, and sometimes shoot video too. All for the same wages, and the deadline doesn't change.

 

If you shoot from the sidelines, stay at least 5 yds ahead of the ball. Never position yourself behind the line of scrimmage. Roll on every play, XP included. Get coach, crowd and clock cutaways when pertinent. After a score, shoot the scoreboard quickly for score/time/quarter reference. If your camera has "timecode" try to sync it to time of day - that way it's easy to glance at your watch and jot notes when important plays happen. Don't forget extra batteries and to re-white balance as the sun goes down, if that's what your camera requires.

As for what to charge - depends on whose equipment you're shooting on and if you have to edit, among other things.

Have fun!

 

That's the direction our small daily is going... all the new equipment should be here in October.

The managing editor hasn't tried to hide the fact that it will be a lot more work for the same pay. I might wind up applying for the 'online editor' position depending on the work schedule and the pay...

 

I'm sure it's more work. But people who want to move up in the world know that you sometimes just have to bite your lip and kick it in overdrive. I guess the larger question I'd like to pose is where this puts print in the hierarchy. If there are video reports, what's the point of a written story by the same person with the same facts? Is the video going to take precedence? And why not just start a TV station?

 

As someone who used to shoot preps and Pac-10 football... I agree with every word of this.

 

Bingo.
And, there will be two or three versions of the same story, but less news.
I pity the poor sap who has to cover a night meeting on deadline, but the web guy wants a video package put up before he goes home while a print deadline closes in. Sheesh.

 

They're pushing this shit at my paper. If the online editor (formerly of the local shitty broadcast news team) had any say, I'd have a fucking video camera strapped to my forehead.

But, I won't turn into a videographer any time soon. I'm still at a small daily where the money is still driven by the print product. Online advertising doesn't pay for shit around here.

That, and the new ME doesn't want us shooting everything under the sun "just because we have the toys." Very practical response to me.