The Video Journalist

Yes, our newspapers have gone digital.  Online newspapers and magazines are crowding our browser bookmarks.  But what does that mean exactly for the news articles or the journalist for that matter?  Well, first the articles will be more interactive.  More interactive means video.


Video?  But journalists are writers, not tv talent.  So, what does that mean exactly for our talented writers out there?  Will they have to put on a fancy suit, get a new hairdo and learn to talk in front of a camera.  Well, maybe not exactly but it is possible that they will have to learn to be both efficient writers, speakers and savvy on camera.  They will have to compete with TV news online that has streaming video straight from the professional camer itself.


Magazines are my favorite form of editorial, and I decided to take a look a those magazines and how they transfer online, specifically as online videos.  My three favorite magazines are The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, and WIRED.  Three amazingly created magazines both in design and in content.  But can they show that same wit, creativity and experience via video?  Let's take a look...


First, The New Yorker.  Love their witty articles, but their video articles... Not so much.  Very stale in comparison to the written words, and gorgeous illustrations of the printed magazine.  There is no remanent of The New Yorker style in the videos that this is in fact the New Yorker.  The only indication is that the videos are done by the New Yorker writers and contributors themselves, which is pretty evident since they are clearly not TV talent.   They look like amateurs, and their wit doesn't at all come across the camera.  The words that once had such strength written in an article are now pretty dull in comparison on video.  The stories are still the same but they have died somewhere in translation to video.  The writers look uncomfortable talking to the camera, and for the most part do not come across with the same ambition and style.  Lastly, The New Yorker videos are seriously lacking a user interactivity with these videos.  Where are the comments, the reviews, the discussion, the sharing to other social media outlets?  No where I could see...


The New York Times Magazine and WIRED both have sophisticated videos, and plenty of user feedback and interaction.  They clearly have the professional touch, and all the equipment needed to create videos that resemble their magazines.  The only difference was that WIRED magazine videos seems to call to me more than The New York Times content.  Why? The WIRED videos have a more humanized and personal feel.  Like they are interacting with me.  The formats, the screen shots, the excess of information, and various media in the video keeps me entertained.  


My favorite video on the Music Business now.




Here is another video from New York Times Magazine, where they are also talking to the audience in a similar informative style which was very entertaining, but there is a sense of disconnection.  The engagement is not nearly as interactive.  I like the idea of making it seem like a natural setting of a conversation but the players in this video seem a little awkward.  Lastly, I think being able to embed video into any content is VERY important.  The New York Times Magazine does not have that capability.  I can only share it to social media networks or link it.

So, here is the link:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/10/15/technology/personaltech/1247465189108/radical-cameras.html


Overall, video is bringing a new wave of interaction to online journalism.  But what's going to happen to reading?  Are we only going to be fed information from now on?  That is for another blog...