A couple of things.
Posting has been sporadic lately thanks to the time commitment of a two-week internship with ABC TV.
I do have things to blog, mainly pointing to interesting online media stories of late.
The other thing is related to that. This blog has become more and more a collection of links to online media stories and information, and occasionally my thoughts thereon.
I’m fairly comfortable with this, as it seems to be in keeping with my increasing interest in the converging world of online journalism, where newspapers and television are increasingly competing in the same video market.
I’m at ABC TV interning for the next two weeks, which is going well so far. I appeared scowling in the background of the 7pm news last night as Peter Beattie talked about a new water pipeline.
Last week on Friday I put together a video clip for the Courier Mail online, that can be viewed if you follow this link. It’s fairly low on informative content, but I spent a lot of time working with the transitions and timing for the music… It was fun playing with editing software (Adobe Premiere Pro) for only the second time.
I didn’t mean to post the entire article online, but from the Online Journalism Review is a basic guide: Tips for shooting better online video.
I was reading through my Introduction to Broadcast Journalism lecture notes to see again the different shot types – pan, tight, mid, wide, etc. – and noticed some of the notes I took in class (almost two years ago now).
…give camera person as much info as will help get the right shots
– fine line between giving info and telling camera person what to do
But when online, usually I am the camera person. So I should know how to get the right shots myself, and be able to tell the camera person (if I do happen to have one) exactly what I want and how I want it.
In an interesting summation of what web video should NOT be, the following observation from Kurt Anderson is amusing because it’s true.
…a nervous editor interviewing wooden film critics, could be a public-access cable clip. Often, the Times reportersâ€™ videos are like tentative, so-so versions of TV-news spots, unremarkable sound bites interlarded with scripted blah-blah boilerplate.
The lessons seem obvious: Donâ€™t do Web video if you donâ€™t have anything interesting to show, and donâ€™t compete with TV unless you can do something they canâ€™t or wonâ€™t. In other words, use the medium.
Rather than just me, or other better-informed people, simply theorising about what may happen with online video content, a study says up to 80% of television viewing will be done on-demand within seven years.
Study: Linear TV on its way out for many – Lost Remote TV Blog
People in the 18-39 age group will consume 80 percent of their television/video via the internet, VOD, DVR, IPTV or other on-demand platforms in 7 years time, predicts a study by Solutions Research Group. â€œNetworks have to think about a future where everything is nonlinear, more or less, and everything is picked out to watch on any and all platforms,â€ said Kaan Yigit, an analyst with the company.
For anyone interested in online video – here’s a good rundown of what newspapers in the UK are doing.
Remember that you are not in the local tv station business – you are in the business of delivering product to peopleâ€™s homes to generate ad revenue.
As Rosenblum points out, people who are able to will increasingly get that content to their home via online. As online speeds get faster and more affordable, the number of people who are able to access online content will also grow, feeding the delivery process.
I do still question where the world outside of technological advancement lies. Does the third world get left behind in news access or local content?
And from a Western viewpoint, are news consumers simply ‘ad revenue’? Probably, although I wish news could just be about informing people, not generating money.
The technology of small HDV cameras and they will get both smaller and better and laptop edits no one seems to argue with this one, will give rise is already to a generation of very good journalists who can shoot, edit and deliver online with no problem.
This is going to happen. It is happening now.
The job opportunities for young journalists who can work in this way will be limitless.
If it turns out to be true, sweet.
Today Fairfax launched their competition to News Ltd in Queensland, the Brisbane Times. I’ve only just seen it now and don’t have time to really check it out, so there you go, have a link.
For those who think that newspapers are not going to compete with television news in the realm of video. A Washington Post with 50 cameras in DC also makes it potentially the biggest local TV news station in DC.
Automating advertising to fit with visual or audio clip content based on speech recognition could yield some unwanted results, particularly if the accent isn’t recognised.
Apparently it’s going to be the way to go, with software created to serve relevant ads based on words spoken in a video clip.
But how much design goes into getting it to work in the US, only to have a New Zealand news clip about six beached whales return ‘relevant’ escort service ads?
Okay, I had to follow up my last post with a link to the post in question.
Rosenblum bemoans a stagnant world of TV news sameness.
Why is a medium that could be so incredibly creative and innovative turns out to be so turgid, boring, banal and predictable?
A lot of it has to do with cost. The cost of production.
But not in 2007. Not in 2007 because it does not cost anythingâ€¦ or hardly anything, to make TV.
You have an idea? Good, hereâ€™s the camera, hereâ€™s the laptop. Thereâ€™s the door. See you at 6. Lemme see what you can do. If its great.. great. If it sucks.. who cares? Try again.
Maybe a little less of the ‘who cares’ in a tight media market, but spot on in that you can produce a palatable product to the viewer, even if the professionals might not think it’s technically perfect.
I mean, two weeks ago on internship I shot some video where I used a tiny hand-held digital video (DV) camera for the first time in my life. Then, on software I’d never used but been given quick instruction with the day before (Adobe Premiere Pro), I edited my video and published it online. It surely doesn’t take long to be at least efficient, and therefore cost effective, in production of video for either the web or TV.
Lost Remote links to Michael Rosenblum, an apparent despiser of those afraid to embrace new technology. Steve Safran at LR defends his views on the grounds that:
TV newsrooms are firing people every week. Thatâ€™s the reality. Thatâ€™s not the fault of technology, itâ€™s the fault of people who donâ€™t see the benefits of it and donâ€™t adapt to it.
Rosenblum writes in his post, Breaking News:
About 10 years ago, when The New York Times was first starting NYTimes.com, most of the newspaperâ€™s senior staff were nervous about the web. They did not feel anything should appear on the website until it had already been published in the paper. Of course, the paper only comes out once a day, and that is directly antithetical to the notion of â€˜immediacyâ€™ for an online site. It took the newspaper years to come to accept that the web came first, the paper followed.
Newspapers were the first ones hit by the impact of the web, but now it is coming to television as the web goes to video. Yet even among our own clients, some of whom are local TV news stations; they can only see the web as a place to put stories after they have aired on their programs.
I know it’s a long quote, but important to note the NYTimes website is much more advanced than most. I also love a bit of thought provocation, so with post titles like Why TV News Sucks, he gets added to my scanner.
The other day I complained about a television station unlawfully detaining me on their channel through nefarious means, and declared my intention to bypass their chains and shackles at the first available opportunity.
BitTorrent, a downloading service better known for film piracy, has struck some deals whereby they will offer legal, paid downloads of movies, TV shows and more.
In May last year, Warner Bros. agreed to sell movies and TV shows using the BitTorrent software, and Monday’s announcement is the culmination of months of planning by BitTorrent to enter the market for legal downloads.
I know iTunes is already doing pretty well on this front, but competition works. Also, that TV content isn’t available in the Australian iTunes store. The only visual content currently available is music videos and eight Pixar short films.
The competition for market share between ‘old’ and new media within an organisation could end up costing media companies billions.
In the traditional world, content produced by professionals and distributed through proprietary platforms still dominates. But in the new world, content is often user-created and accessed through open platforms.
Perhaps they can still drive content to each other (print/broadcast and online arms of the same media corporation) in a way that complements both, but apparently resistance to change in the past could cost them in the long run.
Everyone’s playing catchup now.
In my lecture on European Political Issues, the lecturer put up this image by Turkish artist Burak Delier, and then asked 12 people to describe the image using no more than three words.
After the first volunteer had to have it pointed out that “racist, terrorism, Muslim” was probably not the vibe the Turkish artist was going for, we were subjected to a bit of long-windedness. Terms like disestablishmentarianism, and supercalafraj – okay, they weren’t thrown about, but everyone was trying for those big, impressive words.
My favourite was ‘bandaid assimilation’. My favourite that is, apart from my own bit of three word self-congratulation.
Where the veil?
Unfortunately, I knew both the levels would be lost and my brilliance not recognised simply by saying the words, but neither could I write it out for people. Not surprisingly, “Where, that’s W-H, where the veil. Question mark”, also lost them.