Sunday, September 19, 2010

Audio & Video on "news" sites

Whether helpful, or just plain amusing, audio and video links have become just as essential to a news story as the actual written content itself. 

The New York Times website boasts its top stories of the day, frequently updating content for the "on the go" useer. At the very top, next to "Today's Paper" is a tab for "Video." I find this to be rathe important, since the Times is basically saying "the most important stuff on our site is what we wrote today, and video." A quick click on the link, and everything from sports, travel, arts and style, to breaking news, technology and religion are readily available for the user.

But does the added "umph" of a video really work? 

Well, I think it does. In the case of gay marriage, the topic has basically been beaten dead. But when you see a video that shows actual people, not just words on a page, expressing their drive to become marital equals, the message hits harder. The main video on the NY Times Video section does just that. 

The Huffington Post, a nice little site which sort of compiles news from all over the nation into one easy to read site, utilizes video and audio frequently. 

Just under the main "Oil Spill" header on the site today is a video about how Christine O'Donnel is getting ridiculed by TV hosts. Would reading the comments by such people be nearly as effective as seeing the actual telecast itself? I think not. 

There will always be a place for the written word - we're journalists for crying out loud! But to neglect incorporating video and audio into our work, especially for an online audience which typically goes click happy from article to article, would be a nail in the coffin. 

5 comments:

  1. I ended up discussing the same NYT Video on gay marriage. I agree with you--this video tells the story in a new way, with real people, and with a different approach. It was effective.

    Your Huffington Post reference and video are also as effective. They tell a story in a way that words cannot.

    I like what you said about how not using multimedia would be a "nail in the coffin." There are constantly discussions about the future of journalism, etc. Will it survive? Will the print news survive? I'm not sure about print--but I am sure that journalism will survive if news sources decide to use all mediums as they become available. Videos are not that new, but they are becoming more popular. We need to use everything we've got to get the news across. Videos, social media, pictures, and writing. No nailing in our own coffins!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree with you concerning the NYT video about gay marriage. The video gives a face to those individuals that, in print journalism, would only have a name. It brings the issue to more of a personal level, and by doing that, makes the point made more effective.

    I also agree that if failing to incorporate video and audio into our work would be a deadly move. As journalists, we should be conditioned to adapt to the changes that continually affect our line of work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joe, first of all, from a journalistic perspective, I like your lead, my friend.

    Your question, "Does the added 'umph' of video really work?" made me think and I'm not sure the answer ought to be such a resounding "yes." I think whether or not video "works" is dependent on the goal of the news organization. If reporters have already approached the topic of the video with vigor, I wouldn't necessarily say the news source is achieving its job of reporting relevant and balanced information. I'm not trying to suggest your example is not relevant. However, I think video has the power to make almost anything interesting, and just not everything needs to have attention drawn to it continually. While the ability to make anything interesting--even a topic that has been beaten into the ground--is plausible, it is not necessarily newsworthy. In that sense, maybe video has misdirected journalism a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You've got a point, Joe... And a popular blog to comment on. I believe in the added 'umph,' as apparently others do as well, but will there really always be room for the print journalist? Not anytime soon will they become vestigial, mind you, but I think we'll be moving past the whole print thing sometime in the next 25 years. Anyway, that's my two cents. Good video selection. I like what you pulled together for the blog!

    ReplyDelete