I went to CNN.com and watched "A judge flips for sobriety," about a judge in North Carolina who does cartwheels for anyone who completes 90 meetings in 90 days with Alcoholics Anonymous.
Overall, I thought the piece was interesting. The virtue of being able to show the judge actually doing the cartwheels made this story an ideal candidate for video rather than text-only. However, I think the stroy could have been improved in terms of structure. In the 1:22 piece, the judge does his cartwheels in the first thirty seconds - hardly an incentive to keep watching. At the same time, I can see why people would turn away before the end. I thought there was a lot of good information in the piece, and I thought the judge explaining why he believes strongly in AA's alcohol rehabilitation brought seriousness to a story that would seem silly. I liked hearing the judge's voice. His expressions, mannerisms and tone fit perfectly with his message. The language of the piece was fairly interesting: "...turning the judge into a gymnast..." but the story could have done with a better introduction... meaning it didn't have one at all.
I really like pieces like this that are entertaining and fun and lighthearted while at the same time serious and important. I think they really reach out to audiences, and they really delve into an area that print can't touch as easily. This story wouldn't have been half as engaging if it was in the newspaper, as words about cartwheels would have shifted to a story strictly about the 90 in 90 AA promotes.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
City of Brotherly Love?
Deborah Feyerick’s story entitled “City of Brotherly Hate?” is definitely one of the most powerful and emotionally-charged videos that I have ever seen on CNN.com. Most of the stories that I find on this website cover trivial events or mere novelties, but this story tackled a serious issue facing Philadelphia’s urban population with professionalism. I firmly believe that this story on the city’s escalating murder rate would not be nearly as effective in print form due to the graphic and emotional subject matter presented.
The most compelling scene in this piece involves Bill Cosby asking an auditorium full of people to stand up if a close relative has ever been shot in their neighborhood. Watching nearly half of the room slowly rise in despair was one of the most emotional scenes that I have ever seen in a feature story. Feyerick also followed a tearful mother to her son’s grave and spoke to frightened children in a local community center, two scenes to which print could never do justice.
I was extremely impressed by this story and recommend that everyone watches it when they get a chance. Although I think it is excellent, I suppose that if I had to change something I would get more shots of the street. Too much of the story takes place inside safe and sheltered locations such as the community center and the police commissioner’s office. A few shots of street violence or simply the streets themselves would add a relevant visual cue to evoke even more of a response from viewers.
The most compelling scene in this piece involves Bill Cosby asking an auditorium full of people to stand up if a close relative has ever been shot in their neighborhood. Watching nearly half of the room slowly rise in despair was one of the most emotional scenes that I have ever seen in a feature story. Feyerick also followed a tearful mother to her son’s grave and spoke to frightened children in a local community center, two scenes to which print could never do justice.
I was extremely impressed by this story and recommend that everyone watches it when they get a chance. Although I think it is excellent, I suppose that if I had to change something I would get more shots of the street. Too much of the story takes place inside safe and sheltered locations such as the community center and the police commissioner’s office. A few shots of street violence or simply the streets themselves would add a relevant visual cue to evoke even more of a response from viewers.
"News," eh?
I went to ABC.com, expecting to be dazzled by the wide variety of hard-hitting, serious news reports which I assumed would be sprinkled about the site. Instead, I was hit with headlines like "HOT NEWS: BRITNEY IN A BIKINI!" I had to scroll to the bottom of the page to find anything more relatively important, and still very few of those were played up as much as the Britney issue. Since so much space was devoted to her and the haircut, I decided to watch a video clip about it. The clip actually had an anchor seriously explaining the important issue, and another video even offered expert insight into the lives of several young popstars. Really I was disturbed by how much media attention was going to this frankly uninteresting and unimportant segment of pop culture. But even so, I was bored out of my mind with the lack of actual INFORMATION provided. If you're going to talk about some celebrity escapade, at least go into some interesting detail that will hold attention. They repeated the same two shots of Britney with her head shaved, and mentioned her new tattoos at least twice--but never specified what they were or why they were relevant. Because of this, I really don't think that the story--at least at that stage in its development--was broadcast-ready. Without informative or varied shots, the actual bits of information that were provided could just as easily have been presented through a well-written story with one or two still photos sufficing for visuals. Text-only may be slightly less effective just because it is sort of shocking to actually see the celebrity without hair. Other than that, I would argue that this "story" was a waste of 30 seconds of my life.
Um, Ouch. Double ouch. Ouch, infinity.
Show, Don't Tell is more than just a song by progressive Canadian rock band Rush. It is a way to aid understanding of a story, to illustrate what words can only describe.
The video I watched is a sports one, and it is not for the squeamish. As www.espn.com has grown, it has included more and more video to supplement its news stories - which are often taken from the Associated Press wire. Having heard about Los Angeles Clippers guard Shawn Livingston's horrific knee injury, I knew the Worldwide Leader would have video for those of us who are curious to see yet another instance of a man's leg being twisted in unnatural ways.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2781003
The story is one thing, but to see the incident, to see his face as he writhes on the ground, to see him helped off the court . . . that is the human drama of journalism and sports journalism. He tore just about any ligament you can on the play, but ultimately when you see the video, you see how young Livingston is, and that goes to the possibility of recovery.
While this particular video can be said to merely satisfy the abovementioned grossout-holics, it is an example of how video can supplement a story. Show, Don't Tell.
The video I watched is a sports one, and it is not for the squeamish. As www.espn.com has grown, it has included more and more video to supplement its news stories - which are often taken from the Associated Press wire. Having heard about Los Angeles Clippers guard Shawn Livingston's horrific knee injury, I knew the Worldwide Leader would have video for those of us who are curious to see yet another instance of a man's leg being twisted in unnatural ways.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2781003
The story is one thing, but to see the incident, to see his face as he writhes on the ground, to see him helped off the court . . . that is the human drama of journalism and sports journalism. He tore just about any ligament you can on the play, but ultimately when you see the video, you see how young Livingston is, and that goes to the possibility of recovery.
While this particular video can be said to merely satisfy the abovementioned grossout-holics, it is an example of how video can supplement a story. Show, Don't Tell.
Beaver's Return
I watched a video on the New York Times website about beavers returning to New York City after 200 years. I wasn't terribly interested in it, mostly because it could have easily been a slide show. The only thing that the video really added was some footage (not captured by the Times reporters) of a beaver swimming in the Bronx river. Everything else was an attempt to make what would have been just as effective as a photograph a video shot by panning down the river or up a gnawed on log. A lot of the report was made up of still images, such as a picture of an old Congressman, the New York Seal, and heat images of the beaver's dam. There was also an interview involved, with the Bronx river as a backdrop, but I didn't really need to watch the man talk. Seeing a picture of his face and then having his voice play over the other images would have been enough for me. I think the reporters probably wanted to include the footage of the beaver swimming so much that they made the whole thing a video, but they should have gotten more beaver footage of their own or found a more interesting, video-friendly angle to add to the story.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
80lbs Hamburger!
From Evan Groll
(first a question, does anyone have any idea why I am never able to sign in. I've tried entering both my email and my display name under "username" and neither has worked. Each time I post I have to create an entirely new account. Any help?)
The video I watched can be found at:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=38b5af59-7379-4593-b183-6b8d65204ec7&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&fg=
It's about an 80lbs hamburger and its creator. It costs over $300 and is going to be submitted to the Guiness Book of World Records. Over all, as a features story I enjoyed the video. It definitely grabbed my attention and the sound bites flowed right over the video. It was short and sweet as well, only about 40seconds. I felt as though the reporter did a good job of narrating, but I would have liked to hear from the creator/restaurant owner as well. The reporter talked the entire time, leaving out the actual voices of the story. Personally, I want to know how and why the owner chose to create it? How many tries did it take? etc.
As a story, I think the effect would have been little to none if it were a newspaper article. Without various images of the burger it sounds like a tall tale. As I mentioned before, there were no voices, but the video of the hamburger allowed it to, in a sense, tell its own story. You could see the pound of lettuce, pound of tomatoes and 4 onions slabbed on top of the overweight slab of beef. I think this particular story was definitely a video story, but there remains a little room for improvement.
(first a question, does anyone have any idea why I am never able to sign in. I've tried entering both my email and my display name under "username" and neither has worked. Each time I post I have to create an entirely new account. Any help?)
The video I watched can be found at:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=38b5af59-7379-4593-b183-6b8d65204ec7&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&fg=
It's about an 80lbs hamburger and its creator. It costs over $300 and is going to be submitted to the Guiness Book of World Records. Over all, as a features story I enjoyed the video. It definitely grabbed my attention and the sound bites flowed right over the video. It was short and sweet as well, only about 40seconds. I felt as though the reporter did a good job of narrating, but I would have liked to hear from the creator/restaurant owner as well. The reporter talked the entire time, leaving out the actual voices of the story. Personally, I want to know how and why the owner chose to create it? How many tries did it take? etc.
As a story, I think the effect would have been little to none if it were a newspaper article. Without various images of the burger it sounds like a tall tale. As I mentioned before, there were no voices, but the video of the hamburger allowed it to, in a sense, tell its own story. You could see the pound of lettuce, pound of tomatoes and 4 onions slabbed on top of the overweight slab of beef. I think this particular story was definitely a video story, but there remains a little room for improvement.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Eureka, blogger works.
Ok, so I've gone in circles with blogger for a few weeks. After many fights, and now a new account...here are the missing blogs.
Radio News Story
So is it horrible of me to say that I have never listened to KBIA? This would be the first time and I chose the Adderall story. Before I comment on what I thought about that story, let me defend my reason for not having listened to KBIA prior to this assignment. First of all, I hate to criticize, but when I think KBIA, a number doesn’t come to my mind. I have no idea where to find it on my radio dial. Second, I become extremely irritated listening to people talk on the radio. Not just news either, I can’t even stand Delilah. My car time is my quiet time. If the radio is even on, it is on something low and mellow. That being said, I surprisingly liked the Adderall story-I could relate. NOT saying that I use Adderall, but I do know people who sell and use. It also made me a little nervous about our upcoming project. I’ve done video before, but radio is a new thing- it’s a field unknown to me (I don’t even listen to it). It seems to me as if building a story on nothing but sound may be more difficult than stories with video and audio. I’m interested to see what it takes.
Staging and Editing
I couldn’t help but to think back to the reporter in the kayak. She’s paddling basics. along in the kayak (literally using a paddle), in a flooded neighborhood, doing her “stand up.” Then all of a sudden two men walk by- lo and behold, the water is only calf high. How embarrassing. The readings and the points made seemed extremely similar to the books we covered J1100. They are also seem very much like common sense to me now-but I also hear them constantly. Maybe a few years down the road we will all need a refresher coarse. Kind of like old people who drive. You know, they were on top of their game when they had to take the driver’s test, but forty years down the road-they may not remember some
Radio News Story
So is it horrible of me to say that I have never listened to KBIA? This would be the first time and I chose the Adderall story. Before I comment on what I thought about that story, let me defend my reason for not having listened to KBIA prior to this assignment. First of all, I hate to criticize, but when I think KBIA, a number doesn’t come to my mind. I have no idea where to find it on my radio dial. Second, I become extremely irritated listening to people talk on the radio. Not just news either, I can’t even stand Delilah. My car time is my quiet time. If the radio is even on, it is on something low and mellow. That being said, I surprisingly liked the Adderall story-I could relate. NOT saying that I use Adderall, but I do know people who sell and use. It also made me a little nervous about our upcoming project. I’ve done video before, but radio is a new thing- it’s a field unknown to me (I don’t even listen to it). It seems to me as if building a story on nothing but sound may be more difficult than stories with video and audio. I’m interested to see what it takes.
Staging and Editing
I couldn’t help but to think back to the reporter in the kayak. She’s paddling basics. along in the kayak (literally using a paddle), in a flooded neighborhood, doing her “stand up.” Then all of a sudden two men walk by- lo and behold, the water is only calf high. How embarrassing. The readings and the points made seemed extremely similar to the books we covered J1100. They are also seem very much like common sense to me now-but I also hear them constantly. Maybe a few years down the road we will all need a refresher coarse. Kind of like old people who drive. You know, they were on top of their game when they had to take the driver’s test, but forty years down the road-they may not remember some
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Video Ethics
Did anyone else read the pieces on video staging and think Principles of American Journalism (J1100). This thought was running through my head even before the reference to Kovach’s and Rosenstiel’s text. I think that shows, for me at least, that J1100 was effective at ingraining a sense of journalism ethics, an important sense to possess. While it is true that most ethical treatments seem to be fairly common sense, it cannot hurt to review these principles every once in a while. After all, people are not born knowing what is ethically right or wrong. In our chosen field, it is important that we have these discussions and agree on these values or standards. One unethical journalist causes a bad reputation for all journalists in the eyes of the audience he or she abuses.
Video staging
When reading this article, I agreed with all of the points that the author made. Every single one. Yet, I feel like this is because most of what he was saying was obvious. I know that due to the world of journalism today, what he said needed to be said, which is a shame, but to be honest, I didn't really get anything out of it that I did not assume to be the case beforehand, aside from the darkening of the OJ picture. Do we as journalists really need to be told not to add anything that was not originally in the video? If someone is going to put it in there, it is because he or she understands that rule and is willingly breaking it. No article like this is going to stop them.
Sliders Anonymous
After reading both of these articles, I think that I may be more confused about the ethical issues associated with sliding sound than I was before I even started this class in January. The article “Sliding Sound, Altered Images” clearly states that adding audio that did not exist is digital manipulation, but is it digital manipulation to add nat sound behind your voice overs? I did this to make my radio story more appealing to listeners, but I didn’t purposely try to trick people into believing that I did my VOs on the street. I will have to ask about this issue in class.
Before reading the article “Staged, Stages, Staging,” I never really considered the fact that just having a camera present may influences events. This assertion makes me wonder if everything we see on the evening news is “staged,” not necessarily by the reporter, but by the subject him/herself. One strategy mentioned in this article to make the subject feel more comfortable is to use wireless mics. I tried this technique when interviewing subjects for my last story and it seemed to work rather well. I felt that I got a real sense of the person I was interviewing and that they were not staging themselves to appeal more attractive, victimized, etc. Even though the audio turned out pretty crappy (I don’t really know why) I plan to use wireless mics in the future as much as possible as a less intrusive way to connect with my interview subjects.
Before reading the article “Staged, Stages, Staging,” I never really considered the fact that just having a camera present may influences events. This assertion makes me wonder if everything we see on the evening news is “staged,” not necessarily by the reporter, but by the subject him/herself. One strategy mentioned in this article to make the subject feel more comfortable is to use wireless mics. I tried this technique when interviewing subjects for my last story and it seemed to work rather well. I felt that I got a real sense of the person I was interviewing and that they were not staging themselves to appeal more attractive, victimized, etc. Even though the audio turned out pretty crappy (I don’t really know why) I plan to use wireless mics in the future as much as possible as a less intrusive way to connect with my interview subjects.
Staging
Last year one of my (many) showdowns with my high school newspaper adviser was whether or not to run a staged photo of an UPCOMING event. It didn't even make sense to me why we'd try to run a photo of an event we couldn't have even covered yet - it was, after all, a preview. It really bothered me that someone who was supposed to have vastly more journalistic experience than me saw that as an "okay" thing to do, since it added interest to the piece. Though she made my life hell with copy-editing for the next two weeks, I'm glad I fought with her on this. I just can't understand the reasoning behind staging. If you have to stage the photo to make it work, then the story isn't there. If you missed the moment, then you have to actively pursue the next. In the example of the NFL draft party, I'm sure something interesting would happen later on as the people celebrated. Just because you missed the moment with the phone doesn't mean you miss a great story. Otherwise, as soon as the words, "Can you do that again?" leave your mouth, the subjects you're trying to capture automatically view the news industry differently.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Wait . . . can you do that again? Great, thanks
The short article on the staging of photos was interesting. I would hope that just about anyone who reads it would agree without question that staging news photos is wrong. At my wedding, the videographer asked us to re-do the cake cutting because he missed it, due to the zealous photographer, determined to catch the candid shot himself, being in the way. He missed the moment, and it was lost.
The NFL draft party story is hilarious in that no photographer worth his or her salt would ever attempt such a thing. If the moment is lost, you missed it. Try for another moment. Anything else is unethical and a deception of the reader.
Feature photos, of course, are different, even though the mandate is often to avoid making them look staged. I do find that it's tough to do what the author said, to try to blend in while shooting. Your presence is never forgotten, and the subject is always aware of it. The key is to catch them when they happen to be least aware.
The NFL draft party story is hilarious in that no photographer worth his or her salt would ever attempt such a thing. If the moment is lost, you missed it. Try for another moment. Anything else is unethical and a deception of the reader.
Feature photos, of course, are different, even though the mandate is often to avoid making them look staged. I do find that it's tough to do what the author said, to try to blend in while shooting. Your presence is never forgotten, and the subject is always aware of it. The key is to catch them when they happen to be least aware.
Ethical Editing
The Al Tompkins article about visual journalistic ethics made a very simple point: show your viewers what you see. It seems common sense not to add audio or alter a picture in such a way that it evokes a different emotional response. Every journalist knows that you cannot add details from one event into a description of another; it seems like every journalist would easily be able to apply this ethical code to other media. One thing that he left out of his article is the dilemma of editing out too much audio or video. When you have to cut down a story to an allotted amount of time, it sometimes becomes necessary to either leave out important details of the story that may alter your audience’s perception of the whole, or to snip out the natural pauses or filler words in your interview subject’s response. I had to cut out an aside in the middle of a recorded response, not only for time but for other ethical concerns as well. The interviewee made a joke about not selling but still serving alcohol at an establishment that does not have its liquor license – a slightly inaccurate representation of the truth that could be greatly misconstrued by anyone who heard it. I didn’t initially want to cut it because it portrayed the person’s personality well and livened up an otherwise dreary statement and because it would mean splicing together words that did not follow each other in the interview. The ethics there, and I’m sure in many similar situations involving edits of “um” or “like” or “so”, are very murky.
I guess what can be concluded from these rants is that while it is common sense that drives decisions to arrange audio and video to ethically present an idea of the situation, it may require a bit more artistic handling when it comes to deleting audio or video from the package.
I guess what can be concluded from these rants is that while it is common sense that drives decisions to arrange audio and video to ethically present an idea of the situation, it may require a bit more artistic handling when it comes to deleting audio or video from the package.
Truthiness
As a journalist, I fault myself for my nagging cynicism when it comes to upholding "the Golden Standard of Ethics to Journalize with Great Distinction and Create the Truth and Maybe Even Get a Medal from MU for It."
Generally, when I hear vaulted talk about reporting only the Truth in the perfect way, I don't buy it for a few reasons.
First, what is the Truth, exactly? It's different for everyone.
Second, how can anyone possibly ignore that a stranger has invaded the room (or his camera is) and that his camera is filming everything they do so it can be broadcast for the world to see?
I would argue that broadcast journalists cannot create an entirely natural environment because as a final product broadcast journalism is itself an inherent unnatural activity. You have this complicated machine, which you follow people around with trying to document their actions for publication on another complicated machine after you chop it up, move it around, and narrate it. Doesn't sound like a natural process to me.
Yeah, it would be nice if journalists could seek Truth and report it (if we even know what it was). On a philosophical level, Truth doesn't exist. On a practical level, a journalist looks a whole lot bigger than a fly when he hugs the proverbial wall.
P.S. That doesn't mean I tell people to do things to get my stories.
Generally, when I hear vaulted talk about reporting only the Truth in the perfect way, I don't buy it for a few reasons.
First, what is the Truth, exactly? It's different for everyone.
Second, how can anyone possibly ignore that a stranger has invaded the room (or his camera is) and that his camera is filming everything they do so it can be broadcast for the world to see?
I would argue that broadcast journalists cannot create an entirely natural environment because as a final product broadcast journalism is itself an inherent unnatural activity. You have this complicated machine, which you follow people around with trying to document their actions for publication on another complicated machine after you chop it up, move it around, and narrate it. Doesn't sound like a natural process to me.
Yeah, it would be nice if journalists could seek Truth and report it (if we even know what it was). On a philosophical level, Truth doesn't exist. On a practical level, a journalist looks a whole lot bigger than a fly when he hugs the proverbial wall.
P.S. That doesn't mean I tell people to do things to get my stories.
Staging!
I have heard about the situation of a cameraman asking an NFL draft player to re-create his first reaction of discovering that he was picked, and definitely, without a doubt, believe this is completely unethical. I agree with Dave Wertheimer that as journalists, our job is to discover the truth, watch it unfold and to share truths of stories to people. Our job is NOT to manipulate scenarios, specifically by asking someone to do something that would not be in their normal routine. There are some grey areas within the context of staging though. For example, in Chapter two about videophotography, the author maintains that it is completely ethical if a journalist is video-recording a fly fisherman casting a fly onto the water, and then to ask the fisherman to repeat this action so that he can get another, potentially different shot of the scenario. The author justifies this because this action of re-casting a fly is something the man would have done despite the presence of the journailst, and therefore it is ethical. On the other hand though, if a videographer did not get the shot he/she wanted of a man walking down a street, and asked the man to turn around and walk down that street again, that would be considered unethical. Wertheimer's reason for this being unethical is because this is essentially asking the subject to act, it makes that subject uncomfortable, and finally and most importantly in my opinion, is because had the videographer not been there, the subject most-likely would not have turned around and walked back down that same street, just for its own sake.
Also, although some may consider it "staging" by setting up lights in someone's home or office for an interview, and therefore changing the natural environment, I find it difficult to fit into the negative connotation of "staging". It is generally understood by the public, as well as the subject that a typically more formal interview is conducted in this way, and therefore, is not giving any false information to anyone. Despite the fact that cameras and video equipment tend to influence the way a subject may act, a good journalist can establish a strong rapport with the source by first gaining their trust and making them comfortable, and then by asking them to do whatever it is they would be doing if the journalist was not present. Overall, this contributes to the outcome of the story as a whole and allows it to unfold as it naturally would.
If the story can only be told through the means of staging, we should make the ethical decision to refrain from collecting that story at all. We need not create the news, because usually a story is always there, whether we can easily see it or not and it is up to us, as truth-tellers, to find it, even if it is not exactly what we think we are looking for.
Also, although some may consider it "staging" by setting up lights in someone's home or office for an interview, and therefore changing the natural environment, I find it difficult to fit into the negative connotation of "staging". It is generally understood by the public, as well as the subject that a typically more formal interview is conducted in this way, and therefore, is not giving any false information to anyone. Despite the fact that cameras and video equipment tend to influence the way a subject may act, a good journalist can establish a strong rapport with the source by first gaining their trust and making them comfortable, and then by asking them to do whatever it is they would be doing if the journalist was not present. Overall, this contributes to the outcome of the story as a whole and allows it to unfold as it naturally would.
If the story can only be told through the means of staging, we should make the ethical decision to refrain from collecting that story at all. We need not create the news, because usually a story is always there, whether we can easily see it or not and it is up to us, as truth-tellers, to find it, even if it is not exactly what we think we are looking for.
Neuticles
This post got lost in the shuffle between blogs I am afraid, but here it is.
I loved the KBIA story on Neuticles. Obviously, the subject matter is inherently humorous, but Justin Ray does a great job of adding in small comic details like referring to the expensive Neuticles as "the Cadillac" of prosthetic dog testicles. Honestly, I don't know how he managed to weave the quotes into the story to fluidly while adding humor and wit to the narration.
The story informed me of offbeat news I would assuredly never otherwise know about, and it caught me ear as soon as I heard it in class. Stories like these remind me of why NPR has dominated the radio in my car since I got it.
I loved the KBIA story on Neuticles. Obviously, the subject matter is inherently humorous, but Justin Ray does a great job of adding in small comic details like referring to the expensive Neuticles as "the Cadillac" of prosthetic dog testicles. Honestly, I don't know how he managed to weave the quotes into the story to fluidly while adding humor and wit to the narration.
The story informed me of offbeat news I would assuredly never otherwise know about, and it caught me ear as soon as I heard it in class. Stories like these remind me of why NPR has dominated the radio in my car since I got it.
Why do I feel like I've never heard this before?
I feel like the ethics behind photos and video are not quite as ‘important’ as those for writing. Not that they don’t matter, or that you don’t have to follow them, but that they are often overlooked, both in the classroom and in the real world.
I took Principles of American Journalism as a freshman last year, and I read Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel’s book, but I do not remember in class talking about how it applied to photos or video. We only applied it to print, or maybe sometimes broadcast. Ethics as far as photos and video were completely left out. But why?
I guess it is because video and photos fall into a more artistic side of journalism. Their class siblings, film and photography, are two of the most creative art forms around, but I feel like that is all the more reason to stress the importance of ethics.
When you write, for print, magazines, blogs, whatever it may be, the more poetic or eloquent you write, the more you cross the lines between journalism and literature. Fancy writing is in novels, short stories, not in everyday journalism. Yes, I think descriptive writing and other literature techniques can make a story better, but too much of it makes it untrue.
The same goes for video, photos, and while we’re at it, audio. Just because it is easy to add an artistic flare to a piece does not make it write. In Wertheimer’s example of the NFL draft party, you see it was easy for those reporters to ask them to reenact the moment. It was even easier because the subjects agreed to it. This is undermining our craft, not our ‘art’, our craft. Yes journalists do some cool things, but it is not ‘art.’
Reenactments, lighting tricks, audio ‘sliding’, and other effects are just the easy way out. Just as asking someone for a specific quote about something is taking a shortcut. And in my experience, I’ve learned journalism is not at all about shortcuts.
I took Principles of American Journalism as a freshman last year, and I read Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel’s book, but I do not remember in class talking about how it applied to photos or video. We only applied it to print, or maybe sometimes broadcast. Ethics as far as photos and video were completely left out. But why?
I guess it is because video and photos fall into a more artistic side of journalism. Their class siblings, film and photography, are two of the most creative art forms around, but I feel like that is all the more reason to stress the importance of ethics.
When you write, for print, magazines, blogs, whatever it may be, the more poetic or eloquent you write, the more you cross the lines between journalism and literature. Fancy writing is in novels, short stories, not in everyday journalism. Yes, I think descriptive writing and other literature techniques can make a story better, but too much of it makes it untrue.
The same goes for video, photos, and while we’re at it, audio. Just because it is easy to add an artistic flare to a piece does not make it write. In Wertheimer’s example of the NFL draft party, you see it was easy for those reporters to ask them to reenact the moment. It was even easier because the subjects agreed to it. This is undermining our craft, not our ‘art’, our craft. Yes journalists do some cool things, but it is not ‘art.’
Reenactments, lighting tricks, audio ‘sliding’, and other effects are just the easy way out. Just as asking someone for a specific quote about something is taking a shortcut. And in my experience, I’ve learned journalism is not at all about shortcuts.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Video Ethics
The NPPA Code of Ethics serves as a guide to follow when editing video, audio and photographs. Personally, I agree with the ethical concerns surrounding audio and video editing. As with writers, accuracy is the 'guiding principle of our profession' and should not be compromised for any reason, especially to tell a story. The example given about the TV station adding audio to a silent surveillance tape caught my attention. It provided an appropriate example of simple neglect and unethical decision making. Although the sounds of slot machines and two gun shots were probably similar to the actual incident, they were not factual and shouldn't have been added to the story. Although adding such audio may provide a more entertaining clip, news is supposed to be factual and entertainment shouldn't be the editors primary focus. If simple background noises are deemed acceptable, then where does it stop. Would a voice over of a woman screaming for mercy as the gunman pulled the trigger be added as well!? In my opinion, heightening any 'news' story or aspect of a story constitutes fiction. A false reality should not be presented for the sake of entertainment.
Contradicting my previous assertions, I feel the incorporation of a soundtrack audio recording or simple sound effects can be used sparingly. As the article mentioned, "it should be obvious and apparent to the viewer that the journalist has chosen to alter the scene or sound." Furthermore, the additional sound must not, in any circumstance, "add an editorial tone to the story that would not be present (w/o the music). In some instances, the use of music and the like may meet these guidelines and be considered appropriate.
Contradicting my previous assertions, I feel the incorporation of a soundtrack audio recording or simple sound effects can be used sparingly. As the article mentioned, "it should be obvious and apparent to the viewer that the journalist has chosen to alter the scene or sound." Furthermore, the additional sound must not, in any circumstance, "add an editorial tone to the story that would not be present (w/o the music). In some instances, the use of music and the like may meet these guidelines and be considered appropriate.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Convergence Confab under construction?
Hey everyone!! Welcome to the new convergence confab. When blogger updated to google and I updated my profile to access the OTHER convergence blog (the convergencey room) - http://convergencyroom.blogspot.com/ who knew that it would wipe out my ability (and yours) to manage posts and to post myself to the old blog.
Thus, the creation of a new posting place for our Missouri School of Journalism, Fundamentals of Radio, TV and Photojournalism, class blog. I'll look here and at the old blogger to check on your posts. Let me know if there are ways you'd like to see me customize this blog.
Lynda Kraxberger
Thus, the creation of a new posting place for our Missouri School of Journalism, Fundamentals of Radio, TV and Photojournalism, class blog. I'll look here and at the old blogger to check on your posts. Let me know if there are ways you'd like to see me customize this blog.
Lynda Kraxberger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)