I’ve still not found anything to beat pen and paper
I’ve still not found anything to beat pen and paper
This is an impressive piece of journalism that you should read: The Lockerbie Deal.
No matter what platform you put it on the quality of writing and research shines through. Here’s the summary of what to expect:
“A Vanity Fair investigation reveals new details about the business interests and private dealings that lay behind the prisoner’s release. At the heart of the matter: the cozy and “profitable relationships” between the Blair government and Qaddafi’s Libya.”
Vanity Fair could have held it for the magazine, but not everyone is going to go out an buy their copy on the same day. They don’t seem to be afraid of people finding their content online.
Perhaps they’re smart enough to realise that increasingly readers are platform agnostic. If they remember to buy the print copy, they will, but they expect it to be available somewhere to them regardless.
Putting it out like this builds a certain trust and loyalty among readers.
If you’re like me, you sometimes forget or don’t have time to read all your favourite sites. But if you know that the publisher appreciates this and puts it online, you’re going to keep reading and maybe buying their content.
Another unseen benefit is that seeing this quality of journalism makes me more likely to buy a subscription to the paper or an enhanced digital copy, not less.
There is something about the physical experience of reading magazines and books that isn’t matched by digital at the moment and perhaps never will be. The tactile experience of paper in unique, along with the all-round sensory exploration that is reading a physical object.
But having the same content archived online beats paper archive hands down because I can access that anywhere without having to leaf through hundred of papers and dig in boxes trying to remember which edition I’m looking for.
Put the two together and you’re starting to build a product I value and trust. And one that I can encourage my friends and extended network to enjoy as well. That is invaluable for surviving in the changing world of journalism.
Here’s a hit I did for Chris Evans’ BBC Radio 2 show yesterday trying to demystify the Tour De France for them.
Yesterday I was at Beebcamp2 and put up a session on shooting video with small handheld devices. We discussed devices in use by people producing everything from news packages (Stephen Chittenden on Operation Longreach) to documentaries and even stuff to be screened in a cinema (Shoot The Summer).
I thought I’d jot down some of my notes from the session but then remembered I hadn’t made any (some journalist I am). So instead here’s my thoughts on how things are changing and what I can remember being discussed.
I loved that year and a bit of my life and got to be really good with the kit. But I couldn’t afford it for myself, same as I can’t afford to buy myself a Sony Pro HVR-Z1 Digital Camcorder which I use at work, albeit with not a great deal of frequency at present. So for years I went without a way of shooting video outside of office hours.
By way of a diversion, in the process of re-reading I remembered that I had a camera before and after this time. It was a second-hand shop Super 8mm which I bought for 15 quid in a shop on the Withington Road in Manchester in 1998 or so. I’ve still got the processed reels somewhere for the road movie I shot with it in Spain. This is from the days when you bought a reel with a pre-paid envelope and sent it back to Kodak in Wimbledon for processing. I’ve never watched the footage because I never bought a projector and never remember to get it put on digital.
That memory is important in one way because that was what it was to be a member of the public in the days before digital. You could have the most brilliant story but the only way to have it picked up by the broadcast media was to be solicited for your material or physically deliver the master copy to them.
Then I got a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX30EB-K Digital Camera as a stills camera. For ages I only shot stills with it and forgot that actually it can shoot 16:9 video and it does it quite well.
After an overnight think I’ve now remembered some of what we discussed:
Small is intimate
Hugh Garry said that Jo Whiley caught a nervous Ricky from the Kaiser Chiefs throwing up beside the stage on her Fuji Finepix. He also said that part of him allowing her to catch the moment was that he didn’t think of it as being “filmed” even though she said she was shooting video.
Small devices allow for that sort of unguarded intimacy in a way that proper “cameras” don’t allow for because people see them and put on their “being filmed” face.
You don’t need a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The facility of small handhelds is that you don’t need to break a sweat carrying them or order a van just to transport everything to the location. Reporters are already burdened with duties and kit when they go on assignment. Being able to give them a way to shoot video and stills without breaking their back or crowding the space means they’re more likely to be able to bring back something useful.
The old rules don’t apply
I mentioned that while editing one package I’d noticed that the reporter had crossed the line in the middle of a sequence but it didn’t feel unnatural or awkward to watch. With the new visual grammar that has emerged we’re much smarter and visually literate than before. Viewers can handle this more complex grammar and we shouldn’t be afraid to trust them.
Footage with bad light, camera shake, warping, bounce fuzzy audio or grainy images can be used these days because the audience understand it and accept it if they are getting something interesting. The phrase “broadcast quality” came up as a reason that is sometime given for not using them but sometimes that has to be ignored, especially when it’s being used as an excuse for not working outside of the comfort zone that programme makers are used to.
One of our contributors pointed out that he’d worked on the documentary where their footage from the top of Everest had been shot on a cameraphone and fitted into a television broadcast alongside HD footage. If it’s interesting, it should go in. The audience will appreciate it and understand.
Convincing people to use them can be tough
It was generally agreed that there are issues around getting our hands on new kit to try and that currently a lot of the innovative kit ends up being bought by people determined to use it rather than available through the usual channels to borrow/rent. By the time the devices are mainstream in use the tech has moved on. For me it feels like this is part of the burden of being at the cutting edge – sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t and you’ve somehow got to strike the right balance between results and cost.
I’m sure I’ve missed out some of the discussion, feel free to add your comments/feedback.
Paul Mason’s the Economics Editor for Newsnight, an NUJ rep and someone whose journalism I’ve got plenty of time for. He’s also, in my opinion, been one of the best adopters of/adapters to new technology at the BBC. He’s pretty forthright in his views, some of which I personally agree with, in particular on the changing technology and its impact.
As you’d expect it’s not being agreed with by some:
I didn’t get the impression that he was using the “protect the craft” defence, which seems to be the current line of the NUJ (feel free to correct me), more that journalism will survive by identifying and focusing on what makes it unique, such as access, although I don’t believe access is necessarily unique or important in some topic areas.
I’m not entirely convinced by Paul’s views on how important the newsroom is as a form of peer review though. Arguably you are guaranteed a certain degree of assurance about the experience and authority of those around you compared to that on blogs. But as online identification improves, this should become less of an issue. Then again, I can say that, in terms of seeing if it’s got legs, there’s a lot to be said for throwing your idea up in a meeting where you’ve got the immediate reaction from people with a guaranteed wealth of experience.
On a blog you can run away and hide or just delete if you aren’t happy with the response – it’s rare that you’ll ever meet a blogger who hasn’t deleted a comment for one reason or another. In a newsroom, you’re only option is to tough it out in whichever gathering it is then cry in the toilets later (NB, I have never done the crying bit).
Online response always appears to follow a pretty clear pattern for me where you have to wait for the initial fury to wear itself out before the quality comment starts to emerge. Sometimes you shouldn’t and don’t need to wade through that to find the story when you have access to it at the next desk.
Or is this all just a bit of navel-gazing from hacks defending their patch from a new platform, same as weavers, farmers, coalminers and just about every other industry that has experienced the massive impact of new technologies?