I was just thinking about this … somebody told me yesterday about a newspaper that spent $20,000 to train about six reporters to become “multimedia storytellers,” meaning they can now get some audio, some pictures and some words and make a slick Flash presentation (at least, we hope it’s slick).
Here’s the thing, building a good Flash story takes hours and hours (depending on the story and the content assets), and has probably less than a 20 percent chance of being a hit with the audience. Whereas a quick video can take very little time to edit, and stands about the same chance of being a hit with the audience.
For $20,000 you could buy more than 50 of these (plus memory cards and carrying cases). In a mid-size newsroom, that it is enough to give one to every reporter, and have 20 or 30 left over to hand out to potential citizen journalists in the community.
That strikes me as a much, much higher ROI.
Not to mention that you’re going to have to buy hardware (visual and audio) for your Flash reporters, anyway.
There can be a time and a place for Flash storytelling, but for the most part, video is a better bet.
[tags]newspapers, video, multimedia, flash[/tags]
23 Responses to “Video, not Flash for newspaper reporters”
Post A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:42 am
[...] Earlier, I said — more video, less production. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
[...] Via Journerdism, I found out my RSS feed for Howard Owens’ excellent blog was broken, because I missed this post that student media folks should read: Video, not Flash for newspaper reporters. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I for one don’t like those flash “powerpoint-like” stories. I think to show the photo gallery or video is much more practical/usefull.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
What about Flash as a way to frame and present video, audio, and slideshows?
What about interactive infographics?
I think there’s a place for Flash in online news, but yes, video is certainly easier to get started with, requiring nothing but a camera and iMovie.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Yes, Howard. Of course these work - I have been proving it with top editors at journalism conferences around the world.
Your blog idea is more than hypothetical - I use these cameras in my R&D and are now depoloying them with newspaper groups. (When I configure these kits for editorial field production the cost per unit is more like $500 when you include backup battery and memory cards - but still so cheap and small that they are practically stealth reporter cameras)
I have used the Lumix that you show here to develop and test self-produced editorial video shorts. Over the past year I have filed from Moscow, Chicago, London, Orlando and refined a workflow and training that makes this a reality for my newspaper clients. In developing ‘video newspaper’ prototpyes I have found that the biggest obstacles in newsrooms now are psychological and cultural. The one thing with these is that you have to be careful with audio. The built-in mic on these units is OK for some types of vids not so usueable for others.
I have to explain to the publishers and editors I work with that web video is not ‘Televsion.’ It’s 320×240, on-demand, interactive, short-form video. It’s still takes a few hours to properly tag, edit, render and post a tightly-edited 90-second clip but these news films can be engaging when properly integrated into a interactive news site.
If you want to see actual news films shot with the camera shown on this blog - click on my URL.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Robb, check out http://www.bakersfield.com/multimedia — a good portion of the video is shot with point-and-shoot cameras. More and more, they are editing (in this case, I’m defining that as something more involved than a one-stream clip). One-stream clips can be shot and posted in minutes, not hours.
Like anything new, training is important. When I’m training, minimum requirements are 1) Pay attention to lighting; 2) Pay attention to background; 3) Pay attention to background noise; 4) Frame your shots well; 5) Watch what you say while shooting (best not to vocalize at all); 6) As a good question that will elicit an interesting response (if it’s an interview type of situation).
There are times, however, where you’ve got to get the news — just point and shoot and hope for the best. That’s a more on-the-fly type of situation.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
As if any newsrooms will drop $20K at a shot for equipment for reporters.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
But, um, I’ve written that check before.
And I bet you I’ll write it again, and again.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
[...] Following up on some reading I did today (Howard Owens and Angela Grant, to name just two), I think there’s an important distinction that needs to be made in what we’re trying to do here at the CICM: helping journalists move online versus making online journalists. We’re here to help journalists succeed in an online, engaged, community-oriented world. For some journalists, that will mean becoming “online journalists.” That’s why I read weblogs by Mindy McAdams, Howard Owens, Steve Yelvington, Adrian Holovaty, Will Sullivan and the like: because they are online journalists. [...]
November 16th, 2006 at 12:47 am
That Panasonic is a great combination of quality, small size and light weight, and its wide-angle Leica lens supports the first (only?) photojournalism rule I ever learned: “Get closer.”
But even an older Canon Elph (under $150 used) can do surprisingly good-enough sound & pictures for some online uses — and in “portrait” format if you want.
Instead of (or in addition to) buying a pile of cameras, how about an in-house class for “verbal” reporters on recognizing when video could contribute to a story? Also, framing a picture, shooting digital video and playing “what if” — all using whatever little cameras they already have (or can afford to put) in their bag or pocket. The realities of juggling a notebook and camera — and working with the word and picture parts of the brain — are worth another course, and a lot of trial and error.
Any pointers on those issues would be terrific…
Bob in Knoxville
November 16th, 2006 at 12:59 am
At some point, I’ll do my own best practices type of post. I need more direct experience doing instead of just telling people to do … to write that post.
November 16th, 2006 at 4:15 am
[...] I guess I started the debate (with this post), so I guess I should answer the questions posed by Mindy McAdams, even though Bryan Murley has already done a fine job. [...]
November 17th, 2006 at 10:40 am
[...] The quote by Howard Owens makes the point succinctly though I only use it for illustration. It’s only fair to point out that Howard’s thoughts and reflection on the whole area are much broader, informed and interesting. [...]
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
[...] I think our disagreement is somewhat related to the Flash vs. Video debate of a couple of weeks ago. Since it’s my blog, I get to frame the debate a little bit (kind of hard not to do if I’m going to write about it), and how I see it is an argument over the definition of quality, and an argument over whether we respond to the audience or make some sort of journalistic ideal of quality paramount to what people seem to respond to. [...]
December 21st, 2006 at 12:46 am
[...] Video, not Flash [...]
January 4th, 2007 at 12:51 am
[...] It also reminds me of what I said before about not buying a lot of expensive equipment — instead, outfit your newsroom with point-and-shoots … and use the left over money to arm local people with cameras. In other words, don’t loan the cameras — give them away … they’re cheap enough and enough will fall into the right hands that you’ll get some good stuff regularly. 9. Mix up professional and citizen reporting [...]
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
[...] I’ve got to heartily but respectfully disagree with a post on howardowens.com about Flash and video for newspaper sites. It sounds like he’s saying to just forget about multimedia packages using Flash, and instead just train people to only shoot video. [...]
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
[...] Howard Owens started the conversation with this post. It’s been expanded on Mindy’s blog and my own. [...]
May 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[...] Howard Owens started the conversation with this post. It’s been expanded on Mindy’s blog and my own. Powered by Gregarious (42) Share This [...]
August 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
[...] Going back to another memory, I think of the first post I ever did encouraging newsrooms to equip reporters with point-and-shoot cameras. It was comical the level of hostility my old posts aroused among many otherwise level-headed journalists. I’ve gotten pretty hot under the collar writing about this topic, as have others. But the bottom line is, it still doesn’t make sense for newsrooms to get a case of GAS. [...]
June 26th, 2008 at 7:12 am
[...] some hint of that, look at this post and this [...]
July 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
[...] got to heartily but respectfully disagree with a post on howardowens.com about Flash and video for newspaper sites. It sounds like he’s saying to just forget about multimedia packages [...]