Writing for a visual medium

I found the Poynter article very informative. It is an article that helps a young journalist think more like a journalist, if that statement is not too redundant. I think there are lots of good interview tips here, particularly asking unusual questions. I am always hesitant to do this since I'm afraid I might get an off-putting response, but truly it is the best way to get interesting information. I also thought the video tips were very helpful and useful, particularly the advise to include geniune moments.

Be Succinct!

I was intrigued by the idea of conveying a story in a word. I know for myself i could use help in "distilling down the issue." I thought that this is the essence of what we do. KISS applies here. You do want to keep it simple; you want to make it easy to understand; you want to give people time to think about what you're saying. This is what we strive to do. This is what we should do.

Writing for a Visual Medium

After reading the Poynter article, I saw some of the same issues that I have faced in doing my interviews thus far.  Instead of having a succinct focus in terms of my story ideas for each piece, I feel like I have struggled to find a focus.  I have suffered from being satisfied in simply getting an interview, instead of making sure the interview goes how I want.  This has hurt me when it comes to writing my story.  "Writing the package"  tells us to have a strong idea of how the story will go before you sit down to edit it.  Up to this point, that has not entirely been the case for me.  However, I hope to make a more complete layout of my ideas before the final video assignment.

focus, interview, get the story told - response from Manu Bhandari

The experts' advices collected by Doug White were helpful. In the area of photography and video, advices really help you take a leap forward in producing quality product. A lot needs to be done beforehand for making a good photo or video piece. However, for sharpening skills at the job, one needs to leave it to time. It is very important to understand this point. We are often led by the belief that we can really be grand masters in photography or videography in a course of some months or even years. That is not true.
It is also interesting to note from the article how concentrating on the main theme of the story very important. I often find myself confused and lost in the middle of the story unable to piece together different interesting parts of the story. Interviewing skills are very important, but for beginners it is very difficult to keep in mind all those points as they are concentrated on the interview. Here too, it comes with time. Getting emotionally involved is most important in every story.

The Visually, Actually, Powerfully, Logically-Story by Jake Carah

     A few things here. I related to the Poynter article for a number of reasons, but foremost was the automatic inference I had  after reading the piece, "I wish I had gone to that seminar." The quotes literally translated the energy of the process those journalist went through besides that and more importantly is the emphasis on the basics in a technical age.  The point of the "focus" exercise was to strip away all the detailing that seems to go on with multimedia pieces, video packages and digital photos that can nearly choke (if gone unnoticed) all the natural substance of a piece. 

     Not to play down the incredible power these means of communication have in our online world, yet it is still the basics of, "Connecting to readers, public service, honesty, and the accuracy of storytelling were at the top of the list" wrote White. That really made me recollect on why I changed my major to journalism and what an odd breed the profession really calls for. Not only must we make the everyday interesting but we must be intuitive about the salient issues that these happenings raise in the daily lives of our audience. To that end I agree with the themes that Poynter's broadcast group leader Al Tompkins said about the importance of the journalist's profession. 

"Over the past few years, the media is getting smart and helping communities get smart. We have to tell the news, reflect the community and connect with [it]. Our job is to be informed by the community and be guided by the things we stand for. The public needs us to be excellent."

Tomkins said. In this context of public guide and pedagogue the press has definitely had a face lift because of The Web and it is always good to remind journalist just what the point of the work is, on the base level.

     That said, the other part of the Poynter article or the other articles in general that dealt with format and structure of a visual piece were extremely helpful in working on the TV story. For instance I found that Fred Shook's guide, "Writing the Package" extremely healthful in dealing with Avid. While pre-planning can see a tad time consuming at first it will save you on the headaches later. I think because of the way Avid is, having a structure or blueprint for your story is invaluable in the long run. Unlike Final Cut Pro or iMovie,  Avid is not as forgiving when it comes to editing a sequence or even a narrative, where the convenience of "drag-n-drop" is nearly non-existent. So, it pays off time wise to have a game plan in reference to Shook, from step 1(a) to step 5(c). Not to mention that story boarding can come in handy while logging your footage and focusing your narrative. 

All good stuff, but the take home points for the big picture I gave to the Poynter article for its rather (forgive flagrant pun) poignant points on the actual role of visual journalism today. 

How to Focus, Interview, and Get the Story Told

The Poynter article had some very interesting things to say. I have noticed that sometimes I will get sidetracked, or not understand properly what it is that I have decided to report on. Summing it up in one sentence, or even one word, is an excellent way to put things in perspective.

The tips for interview, while not new, are always worth reading again. You can never get enough help with that. The tips for video stories were new, and also informative. It is good advice to follow.

Writing for a Visual Medium

I gained a lot of knowledge from the Poynter article that I could use in assembling my TV Package. All the tips they gave in this article help clean up the clutter that some reporters may not notice as clutter. Focusing on the main point in your story was emphasized repeatedly in the article. Using one sentence to sum up your story is an excellent idea to keep yourself focused on only portraying scenes that pertain to your main subject. This sentence will also help in developing the structure of your story and how you want to display each part. After one developed their sentence, they could then move on to establishing a central theme to their story. I think the process that this article described in creating your storyboard for your visual medium, aids a great deal in organizing your work. I definitely will use these concepts when developing my TV package.

Writing for Multimedia Projects

When I read about how it might be helpful to know what the story is about in one sentence, I thought back to the advice I’ve learned from professors, editors and writers who have said the same thing about writing a story for print. This is something I wouldn’t have instinctively thought to do using video but I tried to do this for our most recent project and it worked extremely well. It’s easier to go into a situation taking video when you are clear about what you want to know from your subject and what you ultimately want to get across to the viewers. Knowing that question makes interviews run smoothly and it makes the subject or subject respond to that question with a more concise answer than they would otherwise. From that concise answer, we can as journalists, branch off and ask our subjects other questions that we can include in our story.

Writing for a Visual Medium by Brandon Twichell

The Poynter article about telling the story was very informational. Some of the tips mentioned in the article are things that I already use in my journalism. I felt a connection when the article talked about the "story-in-a-sentence." I have used this idea for the past couple of years, and I have seen a great improvement in the focuses of my stories. I most recently used it for my radio story and have been planning it for my video story. It really makes writing the script for the stories much easier. I also usually do some of the other tips mentioned, like showing an emotional interest, making eye contact, and allowing room for long silences. These have also greatly improved my journalism quality.

Remember 5 things

I really liked Poynter's piece. It was succinct and offered straightforward tips for "getting the story told." I most liked when the author listed these tips from a journalist in Tampa: 1) Show who did what, 2) Prove it with images and sound, 3) Get a "gee whiz" moment that surprises, 4) Include genius moments (connect viewer to subject), and 5) Move the camera around and get different angles.
I think these tips are at the heart of what we're really trying to do, anyway. And I think they point out not just ways to get good shots or to create a strong visual story, but I think they are relevant to writing as well. Because when we write our scripts, we need to make sure that we do all of the aforementioned things 1) with good visuals, 2) good sound , and 3) with good narration. Whenever I shoot video again, I'll be sure to think of these 5 things.
--Tara Cavanaugh

A visual medium

Personally, I prefer that the narration would interrupt the visual story. Even though the verbal language of the narrators is inevitable in a visual storytelling, the way of narrator's depicting what's happening in the story should interfere the understanding of audiences. This is because the producer or narrator pick the idea which they want to say to audiences in one of the various happening in the one story. So they are likely to pursuit the idea and might force audiences to follow it. Therefore, when the story is written or heard, there should be minimum interfere.

Journalistic Video Example - Lauren Zima

I regularly visit cnn.com,which often has both video and text for stories, but rarely both for one story. I watched this video on a woman who won a $50,000 lottery jackpot after being fired from her job. I think this story could have been conveyed just as powerfully in text except for one element: its location. The video was full of colorful, bright casino shots, and many of the shots had lots of movement, such as the slots machines. The location made the story, though its subject matter wasn't particularly visually interesting, very visually appealing.

I then looked at another story, which had both video and text with it. This was the story of an outbreak of chaos at an America's Next Top Model (a reality show) casting call. The story itself is screaming for visuals; it's about a mob scene in which six people were injured. CNN was simply lucky that a freelance photographer was near the scene and shot some footage from a roof, because the text in no way captures the same reaction that video - both the visual and the sound of the screaming mob - captures. I would've liked to see this entire story done as a video, but again, CNN was lucky to get any footage at all. That 53-second video is currently the most-read (most clicked on) story on the site. This story also has potential video because Tyra Banks, the supermodel, produces and hosts the reality show. An on-camera interview with a celebrity would've added interest to the story.

Ultimately, video is harder and more time-consuming to produce than a text story, especially under the time constraints of urgent news. So, in my opinion, video on the Internet should be saved for either stories where the time constraints aren't as urgent (such as the woman winning the lottery) or for when there is a major reason that visual appeal would add to the story (the chaotic scene of the casting call).

Video vs. Text by Danielle Destrade

I chose http://baltimoresun.com as the source to critique rather than a national news outlet for a couple reasons. I have noticed The Sun's efforts in the realm of convergence on Twitter, as I am a recent follower of theirs and have admired their robust social media efforts. The Sun has been one of the many city newspapers struggling to keep its head above water, and they seem to be turning to multimedia and social media to keep up with the current. Instead of just tweeting links to their site, they interact with their readers, asking and answering questions.

Another way they are keeping up with the multimedia advances is by adding video components to their website, another reason I wanted to examine them. I was interested in seeing how The Baltimore Sun, a local paper, included video on their site, as opposed to The New York Times, a news outlet that covers world issues.

One of the videos I watched carried the headline, "Glen Burnie Park Elementary students to change state song Maryland My Maryland".
http://www.baltimoresun.com/video/?clipId=3545365&topVideoCatNo=72085&autoStart=true
The story was very interesting - elementary school students making a case to change the state song to one more positive, less biased, and in the words of a fourth grader, "not old-fashioned". A video story was the right way to go in this case. Hearing the cute 10 year old voices sing their song and seeing all of their young faces at a city council meeting tells the story in a more compelling way than a print story could without that visual element. I thought it was interesting that the video was not purely video - they also had still shots. The video was also not traditional broadcast journalism, with no reporter narration or standup. The subjects told their own story, which I really liked.

Still, it was apparent that the journalist shooting the video was a bit amateur. He favored zooming and panning shots, which were sometimes a bit jerky. Especially considering that he used still photography in addition to video, more of a sequence style instead of long clips with zooms and pans would have looked more professional and been more efficient.

Altogether, it seemed to me that while The Sun is doing a great job with the social media side of their convergence efforts, they need to challenge their video journalists to shoot better video. Right now, the video seems like a perfunctory addition to thebaltimoresun.com's reporting rather than a meaningful contribution.

Writing for a visual medium - Jennifer Elston

When writing for a visual medium, as opposed to a textual medium, there are some things that a journalist must keep in mind.  Journalists must have a more conversational tone that has energy and engages the viewer.  The writer must consider the audience of a visual package. Most audiences interested in TV news don't like to read the news, so words should be kept short.  Introductions for different people in the video are not necessary if they are written at the bottom of the screen.  Each clip shown should be kept fairly short because video is all about moving images.  Journalists for visual medium must be conscious that the viewer only has one chance to absorb their story (unless they have Tivo), unlike a written story where readers can reference back if they are confused.  Everything must be very clear and visually rich.  

writing for a visual medium Chris Vlahos

One of the most important things a broadcast journalist must keep in mind is that there is a difference between writing for television and writing for print. While both emphasize writing in the active voice and avoiding “to be” verbs, broadcast writing must be conversational. When writing for a visual medium it is critical that a broadcaster reference the shots he/she uses in their TV package. If a broadcaster mentions a particular thing the viewer must be able to see that thing upon its mention. Broadcasters do not need to introduce a person in a story the way print journalists do. Broadcasters should also limit the number of facts they use in a story to three because it is difficult to show the audience numbers without a graphic, which isn’t visually appealing. Journalists that remember these differences in writing usually enjoy success in the market.

California car chase--was put up quickly.

Sparks Fly In Calf. Car Chase. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29656986#29656356

The 33-second clip showed footage of the car from a helicopter, and also included a short voice over. Had this video been in a print publication, the visual would have been the shot of a car with sparks flying. The reporting would have differed from the online reporting with the use of eyewitnesses and other people associated with the event. A newspaper would have interviewed the police department, the woman who was run off the road by the crazed driver, and perhaps even the driver herself. The video crew was not able to get that information as they were in the air and there was not a place to put down the helicopter.

I think the reporting would have been improved if they had an interview from someone involved or a spokesperson from the police department. The event began as a trespassing call. I’d like to hear from the person who first called 9-1-1. I would also like greater clarification on where the event took place. The footer said that the event was taking place in Orange County, but not the highway or the exit numbers. The video for this segment was fairly good considering what they were working with. It showed the car going down the highway and throwing sparks. I think the shot could have been cropped tighter at some points. I would also have liked to see the footage from the patrolman’s car if possible.

Video

I found a video on CNN about a man who went on a gun rampage through southern Alabama, killing 10 people in small towns including his mother and other relatives. This video would not compare the text version because in this one, it has interviews from sheriff’s deputy Josh Myers who lost his daughter and wife in the rampage. His quotes simply would not have the same emotional effect on the reader if they were in a print story rather than a video story. In this video, he is holding pictures of his wife and daughter mourning the loss. The video story also allows the viewer to see exactly where the shooting happened and how it happened. Myers had another daughter who was saved by a neighbor, and the video shows her interview where she shows exactly where she picked up his daughter and where she went to hide from the gunman. These elements would not be accessible in a text version of this story, and that is part of why video journalism is essential in addition to print.

video - Lindsey Wolf

I found a video from a CNN affiliate about a firefighter who was laid off while overseas fighting in the War on Terror. With the economy, the fire chief had to lay off the 38 most recent hires, and Leo Pike happened to be in the middle of the pack. Pike’s father was concerned about his son’s wellbeing coming home from Iraq, but now he is worried about him financially as well, since he won’t have a job to come home to. This story was able to show both viewpoint, the father and the fire chief, to understand why Pike had to lose his job.

I also found this story in a print version online. Both versions were useful. With the video version, you could actually see the chief was upset about having to fire so many men and the reaction of the father. Since they couldn’t actually interview Pike, since he was in the middle of a tour of duty, they showed pictures his father had all over the house. This showed how his father really cared about his wellbeing and that he would return home safely. Print stories make it easier to access the information again. You can scan an article much easier for any information you were confused on, but with a video, you have to re-watched the entire story.

The video was good because it was the debut of this story, but the article was able to go more in depth about how the union is fighting for this man’s job. Videos can only be so long, so the can’t delve in as deep as this article did.

Both versions of the story are useful, but I really like that in the video you could actually see how the two sources felt about the subject and what was going on.

Video Response--Tara Cavanaugh

I watched a BBC broadcast on YouTube. It covered the news that the Iraqi man who threw his shoes at President Bush was just sentenced to three years in prison.

It was a compelling video, with excellent use of narration, previous clips (previous video of the man actually throwing his shoes was shown several times), and clips of the current situation. I also liked that the reporter limited his time in front of the camera. He didn't need to do much explaining or narration; the video clips themselves told the story very well. And when he was on camera, the background was a riot-- he was on the scene!

I actually heard the audio of this story on NPR's hourly update this morning. It is much different when the images are included-- sure, I heard that many Iraqis regard the man as a hero, but I was able to see on the video the scope of the riots, and a woman crying as she heard the verdict.

The BBC also included footage of Bush's response to the shoe-throwing that I hadn't seen before, despite the wide coverage of the incident when it first happened. He told everyone to calm down, and said "It doesn't bother me." The BBC included footage of the Iraqi journalist before this happened, too, which I thought was interesting reporting.

Video Story Response - J.T. Burns

The video I watched was "National Guard Prepares for Duty" on KOMU.  

I thought this story was very well suited for the video format.  It dealt with some members of the National Guard who were being deployed to Afghanistan.  It was beneficial to the story to be able to see the faces of the soldiers and their families as they were preparing to say goodbye for a year overseas.  If this was simply a text story, this emotional connection between the reader and the story would be gone.  Although I enjoyed this story, I would have liked to get a few more perspectives from soldiers, as the story only had a couple.  Overall, I did get an emotional response from this story, and I thought it was presented well. 

Journalistic Video by Brandon Twichell

Under the video called "Salt and your Health"

www.cnn.com/video/

This video talked about the health hazards of using too much salt and that Americans do not realize how much salt they are really taking into their bodies. The video had some excellent B-roll with a healthy ratio of close-ups, scene setters, and medium shots. The B-roll also perfectly matched the topic being discussed by the narrator. For example, when the narrator mentioned blood pressure, there was B-roll of someone getting their blood pressure checked. Most of the close-up B-roll consisted of someone pouring salt on their food, so it became a little redundant over time. The journalist(s) should have found a few more interesting shots for close-ups.

I do not think the story would be that much different if it were a "text only" story. It was a very excellent piece of health journalism, so the video aspect of the story is not entirely necessary. It is helpful, however, for those who may not have the patience to read through a health article.

Journalistic video response - Manu Bhandari

The video I watched was at the nytimes website.http://www.youtube.com/nicholaskristof

Kristof talks about the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant of of Sudanese head of state. I think the video was well produced. It really set the context with the first audio in the beginning, and then showed the subject of discussion after that. It had a good scene setter shots in the region of conflict. The videographer has made use of tilts also. The detail shots were nice. What I saw was that the subject being talked about had to be shown on screen. This would increase our understanding of the story.
However, I would have preferred less movement of the cameras here and there. so it can improve on this aspect. There could have also been better video pieces of the Sudanese president to suit the subject matter -for example, army cracking down on protestors or in fighting or something like that.
Had the piece been text only- it would still have been interesting. I thought the video told the kind of story which really did not need the video to enhance the story. So, in this particular case, I think the video did not add much to the story. However, there were two places where i found the video useful: one, when it showed the boy with no hands due to the explosion of grenade in his hands, and second, when it aired the opinion of people about the president.

visual and audible stories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/globalfoodcrisis/marginsvideo.html

This video approaches the themes of food crisis which swept in the early of last year in a very simple way. Fox illustrated the food shortage happening in the global by depicting the one family's struggle caused by the lack of food. The family's daily life is so affected by the food crisis that it is very certain what this reporting is about. Father in this family sells the last goat he owns to purchase food. Even thought the narration of the videographer interrupts the emotional impact on me, the variety of the pictures and interviews still influence me to recognize how badly the food shortage occurs. 

 I think that it is hard to figure out how this story would be different if it were 'text only' story because obviously there is no same 'text only' story which we can. Instead of saying how the 'text only' story would be different from the visual story like this, it is said that the visual and audible story makes audience think that the story made by video can't tell a lie due to their understanding that the video can't be manipulated intentionally by the videographers. 

And, the emotional effect created by the visual and audible story sometimes makes it easier for audiences to understand the story. The emotional effect occurs immediately after the story is heard to audiences. Without the interfere of the rationale processing in human's brain, the instant effect goes into the perception of what the story is presenting. 

W. Virginia's 'Road To Nowhere' on cnn.com by Jake Carah

I picked this video because I thought the sequences had good detail. The reporter and videographer really showed the vast wasteful expense and seemingly endless lack of direction this empty 4 lane highway in W. Virginia envelopes (the building began as a economic stimulus plan in 1965 and still remains unfinished).  However the dashboard cam shot made me feel cramped with too much light and not enough detail. I thought it was rather original to link a stimulus plan of the past to a spending bill of the present, seeing as how some of the $400 billion plus spending bill will go to trying to complete this forty-four year old transportation debacle. Earmark or not, road or just plain uncompleted, I thought the constant shots of traveling down unspecified roads a little agitating and a tad repetitive. Again this could have been a device used by the reporter to convey a sense of incredulousness over the wasteful spending going on in our country. If this is the case I think that it is a form of persuasion that should be avoided even if the argument itself is going somewhere in terms of addressing a larger issue, but that's just my opinion.

video can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/video/?iref=videoglobal

Text vs. Video - Jennifer Elston

 To answer the question of the differences between video and text journalism I went to my favorite source for the news - BBC. The top story of the day was of course a young gunman who took the lives of seventeen in Germany.  Most of the stories on this topic were put together quickly with choppy, short videos - many taken from regular citizens who were witness to the atrocity.  A lot of the videos were a desk reporter talking to a field reporter and not a video package, so I kept looking.  The next interesting story that I came across was from Geneva.  A famous prostitute there has been moved to a famous cemetery reserved for Geneva's most magnificent contributors to society (the famous psychologist Piaget).   There is a huge controversy surrounding her placement here.  Especially, since she has been in another cemetery for about four-five years now.  

The story may be improved with a little more background information on the famous prostitute.  I am not familiar with Geneva's popular figures, so I did not recognize the name or know anything about her rise to fame. I would like more information on who moved her, who is opposed to moving her, as well as the names of other famous people buried in the cemetery.  It was difficult to remember the names of the people and graveyard mentioned in a video when they only mention them once or twice, as opposed to a print story where you can go back and double check names and facts. With video, you only get one shot. 

This story is different from a "text only" story because we, as viewers, are able to view her old videos, an interview she gave a while back, as well as an interview with her son.  Through video, the whole scene is communicated in only 1:32.  In this short period of time we see the famous cemetery, other citizens who were buried there, people who came to mourn her and celebrate her move to this new cemetery.  So much more can be communicated in a video than in print.  Do not get me wrong, print definitely still has its place.  When reading about the German gunman, I wanted more details about him and the situation which can better be presented in print (unless you are watching a long show on the topic - i.e. Nancy Grace - ew.

One in 8 Million series

One of my favorite new features on the New York Times website is One in 8 Million, a series of slideshows with audio that do brief profiles on New Yorkers who might not otherwise be profiled in a written article. It seems any reporter to invest time profiling a person anymore, that person is required to stand in some leadership role or must be the lens through wish a greater story is told. With audio slideshow profiles such as these, we can get to know people who aren’t covered in print articles daily and with the use of audio and photos, we can gain such great insight as to how people live their lives. This story is titled: Georgiana DePalma Tedone: The Mozzarella Maker. She’s 90 and wakes up every morning at 2 a.m. to make mozzarella cheese. The black and white photos are crisp, non-repetitive and they are interspersed according to the action happening in them, with her voice. Listening to Ms. DePalma Tedone walking us through her day or how she learned how to make the cheese is a simple concept but it works extremely well. The elated readers inspired by Ms. DePalma Tedone also found the piece rewarding. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/1-in-8-million/index.html?scp=1&sq=one%20in%20eight%20million&st=cse#/georgiana_depalma_tedone

Video vs. Text and how they differ

I watched an article on FOXNEWS about how a man's suicide note lead the police to the body of missing model. Lisa Davis, a model, who has been missing since Sunday was found by clues mentioned in Austin Agee's suicide note. The video was very informative actually, which I was surprised to see. Many times videos leave their audience with many questions because of the limited amount of airtime they have. But this video was three minutes long and was able to explain all the essentials of the story.

I was provided with information on when Lisa went missing, and who reported her disappearance. I was given the places that she was last seen at and with whom. The connection between her and Austin Agee was also explained as well as information the police gathered thus far on the investigation. I think this video did a good job in telling the subjects of the story, the what, where, where, when, and how in the short amount of time it had. The audience was also hearing from two reporters one that was reporting the story, and another who was actually in the location of where the body was found. So the audience was able to hear from a bystander and from someone that was there at the scene.

I don’t think this story necessarily needs improvement, but I do think if it were in print we would have more detailed information on the case. But this is obvious because of the time constraint that videos have, reporters aren’t given enough time to always provide the audience with every detail. I think if this story were in text we would have more information on the investigation of Lisa Davis with quotes from the police and main investigators in the case. I also think that we would be able to know more background information on the two subjects, Lisa Davis and Austin Agee. Others that were seen last with Lisa and Austin the night they all hung out could have also provided quotes.

But other than those detail pieces I think the video did an excellent job relaying all the important information that the audience needed to know about the story. I was not left with questions that were essential to my understanding of the story.

Journalistic Video

Kelsey Waananen

The video that I looked at on KOMU.com was one about a new technology to help consumers detect rotten food. Because the technology was new and unreleased to the public, the journalist was only able to get interviews with the inventors and hear about how the product was made and what it was intended to do.

I think that the video could have just as easily been turned into a text piece because what it really seemed to be was a press release about a product. I’ll admit that the video gave example of how the ink would change in the bar code, but I think that could have been done in a photo to go along with the story. However, I’m assuming that the main motivation behind making this story into a TV piece was to reach a specific audience.

Writing for a Visual Medium By: Lindsey Weygandt

The style used when writing for a visual medium is very unique. The reporter must successfully combine visuals and audio in order to tell a coherent story. The text must flow in a story format, and have a recognizable beginning, middle, and end. The lead-in is a vital part of the audio report because it must capture the audience so that the viewer does not become disinterested. When writing for a story package, the reporter must initially dissect the video, and choose a focus for the piece. It is important to maintain a general theme for the story, and to pick three to four focus points to elaborate on.  Next, the reporter is going to want to look over the gathered video footage, and look for places where text would help to effectively advance the story visuals. Stories that utilize audio and visual mediums can provide the audience with captivating and stimulating news. 

Woman Chooses Time to Die

The only real complaint I had with this video I found on CNN.com was that the first transition cut seemed sloppy. It was too sudden, very choppy. The pace could have been a little slower also. It got the story through, but I think even just twenty more seconds could have made it a better video.

If this video was done instead in writing, I don't think there would be a whole lot of difference. At least not in the telling of information. Naturally it would have to be more descriptive since it would be lacking visuals and sound. Perhaps more information could be shown through the written word, giving more time and detail to certain facets of the story. But I am unsure of this, as video brings forth many things that the written word cannot.

Chris Vlahos Jane Goodall story

I came across a story on cnn.com about primatologist Jane Goodall and her efforts to educate young people about environmental issues that could plague the planet. I found the story interesting because I looked at it with the mindset of a journalist, instead of a news consumer. The package had a natural sound open with Goodall hooting and hollering like a monkey. If Jane Goodall was mentioned in a print story, the reader may recall her experiences with monkeys or they may not. This was a broadcast story and an image of Goodall talking like a monkey is more effective than just calling her a primatologist. The video then mentions she is speaking to the future of the country and those she believes can help the planet. In a print story the writer would then mention one of the people in the audience and then use a quote from them. This story showed b-roll of those that attended the conference and said that Goodall “found interest wherever she goes” while showing the girl in the upcoming sound bite actively listening and smiling.
The biggest difference in how this story would look in print vs. broadcast is format and use of natural sound. The reporter realized that natural sound would make the story more compelling and used it to benefit the story.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2009/03/08/coren.eco.jane.goodall.cnn

Staging Video/Video Ethics - Lauren Zima

It seems obvious that staging video is ethically wrong. Much like staging a photograph, it is not a representation of the truth. A staged video is a movie, not a news story; it's the difference between the New York Times website and funnyordie.com.

What's a touchier subject to me is video editing. Much like the issues behind changing a photo (for color, light, sharpness, etc.) or editing a quotation ('do we include how many times this person said 'like'"?), the path gets trickier with video editing. If one person was given five video clips and told to put them together as a story in any way they wanted, and another person was told to do the same, I have no doubt that those stories would end up different. Editing video cleverly is how the most successful reality shows are made. So, how do we edit ethically?

To me, the most useful, most basic tool of good journalism will always be mutual monitoring. Ask a co-worker what they think of an issue - talk to your editor. Of course we should all know the basics of good ethics, but it is when we get too wrapped up in our own heads that we get confused. Just as objectivity is important to journalism - an objective, outside point of view is a gauge on ethics.

Pictures of the Year Story - Lauren Zima

I watched the National Geographic multimedia story on gorillas in the Congo. I was incredibly moved by this piece. The subject matter, the plight of these gorillas, was matched by the use of different elements to tell the story (still photos, music, interviews, maps, text.) Some of the highlights:

-Still photos of gorillas moving through the foliage were shown in sequence and interspersed with drum music (assumedly African, which is appropriate to the region.) This was incredibly powerful because the jarring changes from picture to picture matched the beating of the drums.

-A still photo of a man sitting with a gorilla stayed on screen for several seconds. This allowed viewers to take in the image - to take in how close this man was to this gorilla and how the relationship between them was peaceful and mature, not violent or animalistic. It was remarkable.

-National Geographic photographers were interviewed for the story. At first, I was a bit taken aback by this; wasn't it teetering on the rules of bias? But - who better to tell the story than the photographers who had followed it for years? They knew the story.

-Photos were shown of dead gorillas, with the photographers telling the story [of how the gorillas died and how the park rangers found them and buried them] playing over the photos. I think the photos were much more powerful than video footage would have been, especially because the photographers told the story over the photos. In the photos, it's clear that the park rangers looking over the gorillas are sad, but silent in their grief. The photographers gave them a voice, which gave the pictures power that video footage would not have had. Additionally, the still photos of the dead gorillas were astonishing because, lying sprawled out on the ground instead of crouched on all fours, their bodies looked incredibly human.

There were moments when I was a bit confused by time elements; I wasn't sure when everything was supposed to be happening and I wasn't entirely sure of the focus of the story. But, the plight of the gorillas was showcased in the story of what happened over a few nights. I would have watched a full-length documentary on this story - the project was that good.
-dead gorilla photos
-confused by time

Photography Readings - Lauren Zima

It seems to be that, even between journalists, the grass is always greener. LaBelle seems plagued by the search for the perfect picture, the quest to capture a moment - the chance to be there to glimpse and record a baby's smile or a soldier's tears. I've never considered myself a photographer because I don't think I have the eye for it. Yet, I also thought photography was somehow easier; a writer must search to find the perfect person for a story, then work to get that person to open up to the writer. But a photographer, I thought, just has to be there - they just have to snap a photo.

I can see that I was wrong. I know far too little to make this guesstimate but I now see that within every 100 photos, there's one good one - maybe. And of course, that natural eye is so important.

David Snider's pictures were breathtaking. I think I underestimated what it takes for a person to let a photographer into his/her life as well. Snider's pictures were out in the open, but it must take so much for someone to let a photographer follow him/her around; a good picture can be so much more powerful and hard-hitting than words.

Ultimately, it seems that both writers and photographers must have that same observing eye; that same keen sense of curiosity and wonder about the world. We're all journalists, after all.

Backpack Journalism - Lauren Zima

I don't think that being a "jack of all trades" makes a journalist suffer. If a journalist has mastered the key, basic elements of journalism: listening, observing, showing (not telling), etc., that journalist's work will be solid. Though technology is changing, good journalism isn't. For example: good writing is good writing, whether it's in a newspaper or online.

To me, the reason backpack journalists are looked down upon, looked at as lacking, is because of the lack of value placed on news today. The foreign editor for USA Today once told a class I was in that the old adage was that newspapers should cost as much as a cup of coffee, and that we'd lost that. It's true: coffee at Starbucks is $4 or $5. Our society doesn't place enough value on the news, so not enough money is going into the news, so newspapers must costs, so they don't have enough money to give journalists the time it takes to put together a good story. That's why journalism suffers, not because a journalist's technological versatility, and journalists must be technologically versatile in order to survive. It's a vicious circle of unanswered questions.

Staging by Danielle Destrade

My mother's small catering business was once featured in a local magazine in our hometown. The photojournalist shooting for the article showed up at our home and immediately began directing the experience as if it was a photo shoot for Cosmo. He not only completely staged my mother and her business partners baking, but he even posed them for his shots.

What I drew from this was more than, "That guy really took the easy way out." I honestly remember thinking that he could have gotten such better shots if he had just stuck around to see my mother actually at work. Her furrowed brow, careful movements, and steady hands when she makes intricate wedding cakes tell the story of who she is and what her business is about so much better than his cheesy, one-dimensional pictures.

The concept of staging video is completely opposed to the intentions of journalism. As Wertheimer explained, ethical standards in journalism are there to preserve the very purpose and definition of journalism - to tell a story how it happened, with authenticity and accountability to your subjects, your audience and your colleagues. More than that, staging will almost always lead to something that will feel false and empty in comparison to the rich complexity of an authentically told story. That's what's ironic to me - journalists turn to staging to make the story "better", but the way to make it "best" is to just keep trying until you get the real deal.

Staging Video

Kelsey Waananen

I completely agree with Dave Wertheimer’s stance on staging. Having worked on a high school yearbook, I know that it was almost expected that photographers would go out with the sole intention of returning with staged material. Staging is juvenile, lazy and doesn’t even make for good shots- the people are awkward, the journalist should feel awkward and the audience feels awkward because they know what quality work looks like, and what it doesn’t.

I understand that sometime things do not work out as planned but as Wertheimer points out, they story should then take a new turn. If there is a story that is so important that it cannot be used in another way and a journalist missed the opportunity and cannot think of a new way to tell the story, they may want to reconsider their career as a storyteller.

Staging

Staging is one of the immoralities that makes for poor journalism these days. If I am watching a news story and can tell if something has been scripted or staged, it almost makes me want to turn the TV off. Hell, I even can't stand it on reality television shows and wrestling, and those are supposed to be staged. I would have definitely been one of the reporters rolling my eyes at the NFL draft in Dave Wertheimer's article. There is a fine line between news and cinema, and you simply cannot make a news story a work of fiction. If a farmer is actually plowing and you get it on camera, it is news, but if you tell him to recreate his actions, he is a performer in your fictional work of crappy journalism. And most people, intelligent people, will catch the staged parts of your story because subjects are not actors, they are normal people. If anyone have ever seen owners of car dealers or local businesses of some sort try to do their own commercials on TV, it is pretty clear that ordinary people are not good actors. It is best to keep the news what it is: news. If any up-and-coming journalist is not prepared to do that, then they should go to film school.

Journalistic Video Example By:Lindsey Weygandt

On March 4, 2009, a journalistic video was posted on Nine MSN about how rain was increasing Victoria's bushfire threat. Several different sources were interviewed; which provided in-depth detail about the nature of the story. The video contained mostly scene setter and medium shots. The story could have been improved if a wider variety of camera angles and close-up shots were used. One close-up of the bushfire's ashes were shown, but more shots could have been taken to jazz up the video in between interviews. Also, there was only one reaction shot displayed throughout the course of the two minute news clip. I believe the people's reaction to this event is of great importance because the audience wants to know exactly how much the dangerous bushfire's are effecting people. The story would not have been as captivating if it were a "text only" story because through the use of visuals the viewer was able to get a better sense of what really was going on. Watching the interview subject's emotions amplified the reality of the event. I do not believe that the reader would be able to pick up on the intense emotions by simply reading about the piece.

events staged

It might be impossible for journalists to report what it's happening in this world as it happens. Maybe journalist should find the best way of reporting events as they are. 

As Wertheimer said, even just the setting of light or camera for an interview could be considered as an unnatural situation because the setting for an interview didn't exist before in that situation. Therefore, journalists should compromise themselves about how much they could not interrupt the natural situation. As he said, journalist could use wireless microphones and 0ther equipment not to interfere the subjects journalists have interview.

Staged, Staging, and Stages Blog By: Lindsey Weygandt

I believe Dave Wertheimer was dead on in his article "Staged, Staging, and Stages." It is unethical to make your story subjects recreate an experience, sound, or action for any news story. Staging is an issue of ethics because as journalists delivering the truth is of top priority. If we are making our sources recreate something to better our story, it is a misrepresentation and is not the complete truth. Oftentimes, the staged version would be nothing like the original action because people act differently when they are being filmed or interviewed. By telling your sources to perform a specific action you are basically telling them to act and convey false emotion. Ethics is a key component of journalism because it is how the public views the media. Journalists must practice good ethics and consistent credibility in order to truthfully serve the public.

Staging, framing and unreal events

It seems to me that there is a time and a place for everything. Staged photographs and videos do have their place; that place is not in news. I agree with the author of stage, staged, staged. Manufacturing an event in order to catch it is not valid. If you miss the event, you miss the event.

In my own reporting for this course, I have had issues with the weather. If it is cold enough to shoot, I have a class. If it’s too warm to shoot, everyone has the time and the ability to get to the work site. To accommodate the weather, I’ve come up with different ideas for my story. As opposed to focusing on construction in the winter, why not talk about how happy the bricklayers are that it’s warming up? Or, now that it’s warmer, it takes less time to prep the site?

It seems that professional photographers and videographer should follow the same tenets. If they miss the story, find a way to rework it. Frame it differently. Talk about the families suffering in the aftermath of the fire, and have them talk about their experience. See if there is b-roll you can use of the building before and after the fire as a comparison. Good news people shouldn’t have to fabricate an event. They should, however maximize the situation. If it is a scheduled interview, in a chair, light the person so that they don’t look sallow. The anchors have good lighting; why not the subjects?

As I said, there’s a time and a place for everything. Commercials, interviews, there is some leeway. Reporting of events “live from the scene.” There is none. Do not stage those.

Sliding Sound, Altered Images

Sliding Sound, Altered Images by Al Tompkins is a good guideline to how journalists should conduct themselves when editing video and audio. Like it was written, the visual has a huge impact on citizens and we as journalists must be careful not to abuse that power.

The list is a good one, and it covers the bases well. It seems like they are common sense rules, but looking at the media it is surprising the number of times stuff appears to be added or mixed around unnecessarily. There has to be a standard and it has to be adhered to. Otherwise how are journalists going to be credible? If we do not have our credibility, we cannot do our jobs. This hurts us, because we will be unable to support ourselves, and this hurts the people of America, because they will lack necessary information.

It's a good list, with good standards. I believe they should be followed.

Staging

The thing that resonated most with me after reading "Staged, Staging, Stages" was the incident Wertheimer described about the TV crew coming and asking the player to recreate his reaction to getting drafted.  Although there are many troubling ethical aspects to this act, I think that the worst part of this is the reputation that it labels journalists with.  I hate to think that a few irresponsible journalists can ruin the perception of all of us.  In movies and television, there seems to be a negative sentiment expressed towards journalists.  We are portrayed as sleazy, and that we don't care about our subjects, we only care about the story.  If this public portrayal is to be reversed, each journalist must be educated in ethics and take it seriously.  Staging shots is one of the most common ethical breaches.  It is  important for each reporter or photographer to not take the easy way out and compromise their ethics.  

Video Editing Ethics Response

The article "Sliding Sound, Altered Images" reminded me of the picture that was altered during the Hezbollah and Israeli 7 Day war. I don't exactly remember what TV Station it was that did it, but I remember that the destruction that was photographed in Lebanon with a night camera was exaggerated and photo-shopped. I remember the TV Station later apologized for the editing and the real photograph was shown.

In certain circumstances I can understand why journalists or news stations may think that editing of original sound bites or film is acceptable. For example, the Las Vegas television station KLAS that was mentioned in the article thought it was appropriate to add in sound to the security camera film. I can understand their ideology in this decision; I think they just wanted the public to understand what happened in more detail so they added sound. I'm sure they didn't mean to indoctrinate the film but they simply just wanted their viewers to be able to feel the intensity of the event with sound.

I never realized how big of an impact special effects or music could make on a story. I just thought that adding music to a story would simply add flavor and make it more interesting to the audience. However, I never realized that it could make it seem as if some things were added into the story that were not in it to begin with. I learned that sounds could make it seem as if things were invented into the story or invoke a feeling that is irrelevant to the goal of the story.

Another thing I learned is that altering photographs can be very dangerous only because you may alter your subject in a way that might be offensive to your audience. I think that minimal editing is the best way to go unless you must edit in order for the picture to be clear.

Discussion of Staging

After reading Dave Wertheimer’s piece on staging, I thought of an experience I had this summer while volunteering at the Olympics. I was standing beside my friend Shao Li, a fellow volunteer from Southern China. We stood in the NIS, waiting for a gymnastics competition to begin. The stands weren’t filled yet and no competitors were on the floor – only us volunteers. A European photographer walked up to my friend and I and asked us to stand under an entry way decorated with the five Olympic rings. Shao Li is a fellow journalism student and he’s fluent in English. We both hesitated and looked at each other. Then the photojournalist pointed to Shao Li and said, “You look more Chinese, how about if you stand right over there?” We both hesitated again and the photographer could tell that we knew something was very wrong with this. He shrugged and said something to the effect of “Oh, never mind then” and walked away.

This experience gave me insight as to why journalists would feel compelled to stage, whether it be with video, photos or audio. I think it’s all related to the pressure the journalist feels within the time frame and circumstance their in. It’s nice to say that the best journalists can be creative no matter what the situation or timing is and that’s true, but it’s also true that we all lose the ability to see and to use our creativity when we’re feeling so pressured. Still, there is no excuse and as journalists we should learn how to deal with such situations where we might feel pressured. We should get used to talking about how we can use situations that aren't obvious in order to produce great work.      

Staging- response from Manu Bhandari

Photographs or videos of events occurring naturally definitely have charms that those of the staged events lack. As a viewer, I had often felt dissatisfied when some video images on television seemed staged, because that ruined the taste of the story. So, I wholeheartedly agree with Dave Wertheimer on the issue of staging and respect him for adhering to his ethics so well.
However, looking from the camerapersons’ point of view, although people like Wertheimer will strongly disagree, one feels staging can sometimes be unavoidable in do-or-die situations for the camerapersons. Because of the competitors’ possession of good images, there is chance of being under intense pressure to get certain types of images or else the camerapersons may have their job positions threatened. There is so much of time pressure and people in the newsroom are waiting for good, certain type of video clips to compete with their competitors’ video clips.
As noted before, staging ruins the taste of a story. I personally believe in that. The only thing I want to pitch for discussion is whether in practical life, with so much time pressure, and pressures from various competitors, the camerapersons can enjoy the freedom to do what Wertheimer has done to remain true to his professional ethics? Also, will it be ethical if we stage the event and mention it to the viewers that we staged the process to explain to them better what had happened, if it can be done?

Video Ethics and Staging -Jennifer Elston

I agree completely with David Wertheimer's article "Staged, Staging, Stages."  Staging of any kind should not be permitted in journalism.  We, as journalists, are there to show the truth and should keep our impact as minimal as possible. Wertheimer suggests using wireless mics and long lenses and then he "tries to be a fly on the wall and just capture it all naturally."  I have to admit that sometimes it is tempting to want to ask a subject to repeat themselves or redo their action, but that is not true.  It is not reality.  When photographers and videographers do this, journalism gets a bad reputation and many viewers start to believe that news is faked for convenience.  The best natural sound, clips, and photographs are actually not staged.   When filming a subject, film at eye level so that the viewers do not get a wrong psychological image from the shot. 

As far as video editing ethics go, editing should be invisible but it should definitely not be used as a way to create bias.  Cuts should not be used to tell anything but the truth.  Editing techniques should be transparent and not as a tool to create bias or to falsify information in any way. 

Staging by Brandon Twichell

Dave Wertheimer's article about staging photographs is very important for journalism today. It surprised me that professional photographers are starting to "trend" in this direction. Have they not taken any photojournalism or journalism ethics classes?

I do not see why photographers are staging in the first place. Is there really nothing else happening that they cannot take pictures of something other than what they want? What happened to creativity and thinking outside the box? I have run into this problem before, where I do not see exactly what I would like to photograph. That's when I get creative and start thinking of other potential photo ideas for my story! It ends up working in my favor every time, too. Staging is completely unnecessary, and I believe that there is always a natural photo for every assignment.

Altered Realities: The truth is not a stage by Jacob Carah

      Al Tompkins and Dave Wertheimer both seem to want the same thing and that is for reporters to document events as they happen, nothing more. Over the weekend I attended The True/False film festival. In light of the framework of some of the films, I considered the issue of visual ethics and the problems with arranging or "staging" events as a fundamental bone of contention for either genre. Wertheimer's argument seems stringent and simple on the surface, he writes, "Our primary obligation is to seek truth and report it as fully as possible, not to manipulate it or to create the news." The take home message here I think is: Don't Do It. 

      Wertheimer's statement is obviously fundamental and in keeping to the NPPA's code of ethics. Yet, Tompkins takes a further step in observing editing standards with the ubiquitous role of video and audio augmentation technology in newsrooms. Out of the five ideas I thought that #1 (Do Not Add) is the most important and in my opinion should act not just as a working guideline but a statute to buffer bad journalism. Its one thing to have a re-creation of an event to better illustrate and communicate past incidents, but be sure to let the audience know why your doing it. When an event is staged and the reporter that tapes the act presents the footage as what really happened it is no longer news but deception. 

     This concept goes for sound as well as images, altering or adding elements whether for emotive or conceptual direction is a thin flimsy line and should be navigated with precision or avoided at all costs. Either way, by manipulating the means in which the audience interprets the story is not journalism, it is just another falsehood that gives journalists a bad reputation and erodes the foundations of the fourth estate. 

Video ethics- chris vlahos

As a broadcast journalist there are times when I am covering a story and nothing seems to go the way I would like it to. First people won't hold still if I want to get a shot of them, or a particular person I want to interview won't say anything that I can use as a soundbite. When this situation occurs it can be tempting to try and stage a scenario in order to get my story done, but it is unethical. Even though it may not be obvious to someone that watches the story, I will always know I cheated myself and the story. I have found that most of the time the best sound bites are spontaneous and come naturally from the speaker, rather than a coached response.

Staging also occurs in radio and print stories as well, but is harder to notice. While it is most obvious when a shot or an interview has been staged in television reporting, staging in general is unethical and ironically produces worse stories than spontaneous one's.