To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the video debate. It would be nice to have larger, high-quality productions to complement stories. These can provide information and elements that no print story ever can, and the higher the quality, the more apt people are to watch and pay attention to the video.
On the other hand, short videos will allow us to put up quick information and not devote a team of people to one lengthy project. Both have their downfalls (especially short, crappy-quality videos), but in the end, I think a mix of both would probably be the only way to go. Putting up quick, bad videos will work for a breaking piece, but as new writethroughs of the story are being made, a larger, better video should be made. Obviously this won't work with everything, as a major event captured on home video could not be replicated. This is really the only area I see that high-end gear cannot be used solely in video storytelling.
I guess I don't really agree with either guy about their worries or hatred for one particular method. The only thing that will bring readers to a paper's site rather than elsewhere on the net for a video will be its timeliness and its effectiveness. If it doesn't add to the story or grip the reader, then maybe you should try the other method of video reporting for your project.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment