The first thing that popped into my head when asked to analyze video content in a predominately print outlet was the New York Times. In the past, I’ve found that they are very skilled at posting new and interesting multimedia features to add substance and background to the print stories on their site.
In particular, I want to focus on journalist David Rhode’s five-part series: “Held by the Taliban.” This incredible story is a first-person account of Mr. Rhode’s seven months spent in captivity when he, his translator, and driver were kidnapped by the Taliban.
The interactive feature uses video clips from the region and maps that pinpoint where the narrative is taking place. David Rhode narrates the videos by reading segments of his story into the camera. Rhode has a very dry narration style, which is disappointing because the story is so completely compelling on paper. This letdown may be in part because we’re so used to seeing polished journalists on TV. Rhode clearly wasn’t meant to be an on-camera reporter.
Adding some type of graphic explanation to this story did make sense as the action is centered in remote locations in Waziristan (tribal Pakistan) and Afghanistan. I liked being able to understand exactly where in the world Rhode was kidnapped, as my (and I assume most readers’) knowledge of the region is very limited.
I’m not sure why they call it an “interactive feature” as it’s a video summary of the print story, and I can’t find much that’s truly interactive about it (although part of the package is a blog q&a with the author and Executive Editor Bill Keller). I think things like “multimedia” and “interactive” have become buzzwords in the newsroom. Editors may be forcing the creation of this content when it really isn’t necessary. In this case, a simple map would work better, and give me the same level of understanding.
However, I had to rethink my entire analysis when part four of the five part series was released today. The print story focuses on how Taliban video propaganda was watched as entertainment by Rhode‘s captors. The video feature that accompanied it showed clips of those videos and really brought the story to life.
In conclusion, I think this series would have benefited by adding video content to parts, but not every installment. Video features can be an extremely powerful compliment to a print story (see: Part 4). However, there are times when video content can seem forced (see: Part 1), added simply because newsrooms are feeling the pressure to provide more multimedia content, even where it isn’t warranted.
October 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Your point about how some reporters are better behind the pen than in front of the video camera is so true. It points out that just because the technology to make video is accessible to so many doesn’t mean that everyone has the skills to make good, compelling video.