Should online video follow the same conventions as TV news? Adam Westbrook thinks not. In a provocative essay, he argues that several TV news conventions were developed to help journalists work faster and tell stories in less time–constraints that he believes do not apply to online video.
That’s debatable, of course. I’m not sure most online journalists have that much more time to shoot stories than their TV counterparts. And letting stories “run as long as the streaming platform will allow” doesn’t strike me as good practice, even though it’s technically possible. But even if you accept Westbook’s premise, there are good arguments in favor of keeping at least some of the conventions he wants to scrap.
Take the way interviews are typically framed–the “three-quarters shot,” as Westbrook describes it. Instead of having interviewees talk directly to the camera, they’re positioned so they face the person asking the questions. Multimedia journalist John McQuiston of WWSB in Sarasota, Florida, says it has nothing to do with speed.
Reporters realized that if you make the interviewee part of a conversation instead of a television production, the person will be more comfortable and more candid. It is the rare subject who is not immensely relieved when I tell them, “as best you can, ignore the camera and just talk to me.” If I do my job well, the camera becomes just another piece of furniture in the room. This cannot happen if you ask the interviewee to address the camera.
Westbrook also slams the convention of using cutaways to “splice an interview together without distracting the audience with your edits.” He calls that misleading and proposes replacing cutaways with flash wipes or dissolves. Now, I’m no fan of cutaways or reversals. My rule of thumb is to shoot them and use them only rarely, not because they’re misleading but because they’re boring. Even Westbrook admits you need to do something to cover jump cuts that could be distracting to the audience. I don’t see how flash wipes or dissolves are any less distracting.
A third TV “convention” Westbrook wants to dump is the use of voice-overs. He contends TV never does stories without them, which is demonstrably untrue. (Check the stories on this year’s winning NPPA Television News Photographer of the Year entry.) Westbrook is right, however, when he says voice-over is used ”to cover gaps in narrative and explain complicated things in a short space of time.” And that’s a good thing. As McQuiston points out, “summarizing is the essence of a reporter’s job.”
There is another reason for voice-overs: It’s easier on the viewer. A reporter who has had time to reflect and write something should be able to explain something more concisely than an interview subject speaking extemporaneously. This is true even if your medium theoretically allows you all the time you want to tell your story.
It’s hard to argue with Westbrook ‘s final two points. TV news should be more transparent about the source of video. A lack of transparency is what got a Minnesota station in trouble with the FCC, after running a video news release without identifying the source. And TV news should do more than scratch the surface. With fewer time constraints, online video stories can go deeper. But as McQuiston points out, “Don’t mistake having time to go in-depth for an excuse to bore someone with an unfocused narrative that doesn’t justify the time you ask them to invest in watching it.”
In the end, McQuiston argues, the things that make video worth watching on television, including steady shots and good lighting, still apply online.
The people telling you how new and different online video and one-man-band reporting are are trying to sell you something. And it’s a bag of excuses why their video doesn’t look as good as it should. It’s not unconventional; it’s crap.
Westbrook’s original post has drawn a lot of comments. I suspect this one may, as well. Feel free to weigh in. (No personal attacks, please.)
[...] it wasn’t long before Deborah Potter, a broadcast journalist, weighed in on the post. She makes some good points but I feel like both of them missed the main point: delivery is the [...]
Adam Westbrook’s piece seemed to be an argument for his personal shooting style rather than an actual Online Video vs. TV News debate. Online video seems far too broad to apply any universal rules (especially as specific as how to frame interviews and when to use voiceovers). Westbrook’s shooting style seems to be effective online is because it’s different from what most viewers are used to. Web video is a place where video journalists can break the rules and try different storytelling techniques, but applying universal rules would take us right back to the same default standards that online video is trying to avoid.
McKenna is absolutely right in terms of what I am arguing. Mostly these are ideas about different ways we *could* try and innovate with this new and distinct medium. Not everyone will agree with the specific ideas, but I still stand by the original message: that to not try would be to waste a unique opportunity to reinvent how visual storytelling is done online.
Judging by the more critical comments on my original post (most of which came from experienced broadcast journalists) that innovation is not going to come from the mainstream media.
[...] Online video vs. TV news | NewsLab. Interesting article from NewsLab about form and convention in news on TV vs News on the web. I guess part of the evolution of this multi-media production model is learning and understanding what does the viewer like/want moreso than we (the industry professionals) navel-gazing and arguing over our opinions. Your thoughts? [...]
One reason Adam’s original post drew so many critical comments, I think, was the way it was presented.
Some folks couldn’t get past the premise that all the TV conventions he singles out came into being to save time. That doesn’t stand to reason; to give just one example, it’s actually takes more time to place someone in 3/4 frame than to center them and have them talk directly to the camera.
Other folks read Adam’s post as too prescriptive, because he basically argues that each TV convention should be scrapped in favor of a specific alternative. That’s not what he says in his comment here, of course. “Ideas about different ways we *could* try and innovate” should always be welcome. They certainly are here.
My guess is that had the original post presented them as alternatives, there would have been more agreement but less discussion. So hats off to Adam for stirring the pot!
Part of my problem with Westbrook’s post was presentation. His insinuation that TV news is inherently unethical and uses cutaways to deceive viewers was particularly galling, not to mention totally wrong.
But the bigger problem I have is with his premise, which seems to be that online video requires a whole new approach, solely because people are watching it on computer screens. And if only we could unlock the secret to doing it right, we’d open website video to vast new audiences.
The problem is not that techniques of creating compelling video don’t exist, it’s that too few people know them, and that those who do cost more to hire than most online outlets are willing to pay.
So here comes a consultant to tell you that all those things you think you know about video — and all those things you think you need to produce it, like tripods lights and people skilled at using them — don’t apply, because this is online video and it’s completely different.
That, too, is totally wrong. But these consultants don’t make money selling already established basics of creating good video — most don’t even know them. Instead, they tell you that they offer something wholly new, and cheaper, and try to sell its shortcomings as a style.
The Boston Globe recently hired three-time winner of the NPPA’s Television News Photographer of the year Darren Durlach to shoot for its web site. It didn’t do that because it hated the conventions of TV news video and wanted to re-invent the wheel.
It did it because it wants to create video people will watch. Does that mean that online outlets should have no more ambition than to mimic TV news stories? No. It means you build on all that we’ve learned about video journalism the last half-century, not throw it out the window.
But you have to know what you’re doing before you can know what you’re improving.
[...] suspect this one may, as well. We’ve already had a fair bit of discussion about this over at NewsLab. Feel free to weigh in there or here. (No personal attacks, [...]
[...] Online video vs. TV news [...]