Writing for Visual Media

I have watched my boss make television news packages once a week for almost two years now. With many years behind him, he makes it look so easy. The radio story was relatively easy, but knowing what kind of b-roll you have determines your voiceover. My personal take on making a package is that the reporter's main purpose is to flow the piece together and provide factual information to supplement the appropriate sound bites. So the bites that you take from people are the ones that bring emotion and opinion to the story that the objective journalist cannot. Bites of statistics or the like shouldn't be used unless they are the main focus of the story. Otherwise, the reporter can make reference to them to connect the dots. When it comes to choosing correlating video clips, it's very subjective I think, with the various creative choices available making it more difficult. In terms of my particular story topic, my main challenge is keeping up with the action. The dogs move so fast I have to make an extra effort to catch them on camera in nice tight shots. Definitely good practice. I feel like by the time I graduate, I will be very well-prepared for the broadcast arena.

Writing for Visuals

When reading Chapter 9 about how to actually write a package, I began to feel more comfortable with the video-taping and editing process for our next 1:30-2:00 assignment. This Chapter was INCREDIBLY helpful! I have such a better understanding of how to effectively communicate a story through a combination of two particular methods. On one hand, I've realized it is best to allow the images and sound bites to tell the story itself, while on the other, it is necessary to have a reporter closely narrate a piece in order to bring the viewers understanding and insight. A combination of these two methods can also be extremely powerful and really bring the viewers into the story.

I feel the most important information I took away from this particular article is that, in order to save myself a lot of time, chaos and indecisiveness, it's essential to storyboard the piece even before actually going out to do interviews. One of the key elements in this storyboard is the focus and how the different soundbites and images used (especially the closing shot) can sustain that focus. In doing this though, it is necessary to keep in mind the ethics of good, true journalism, and not simply feed the source lines to say because it would support our story. Overall, this concept of storyboarding is something I am definitely going to put into practice.

Now that I've read these articles -particularly Chapter 9- and have learned more about the style of shooting video tape, I almost want to go out and re-shoot my whole story! I actually really like the footage I have so far, but I do want to go out again to collect better video tape, now that I have a better understanding of how to structure a TV package. I think this last part of our individual projects will be challenging, but a great learning experience. I'm definitely looking forward to our group projects because of the learning experiences I've had thus far.

writing for visual media

By far, the most helpful of those three readings was the one about writing the package. I felt that, for the most part, much of the information in the video editing section was already discussed in class on Tuesday. I have never written a timeline like the one that I now know is common in broadcast journalism. I tried once in 2100, but found it to be more of a waste of time for the project than a help to me.

This article gave me a deeper understanding of the proper formation of a television news report. When it talked about planning a story, then having to go back again and reformat your plan after you have shot your story is something I can take to heart. Somehow, things never really go the way I plan them. I think it is a good idea to prep yourself for what you want to shoot (you cant shoot something for a story without really understanding what your angle is).

One thing that concerns me for the upcoming 2 minute video project is the fact that I will be doing both the camera work and the interviews. When I do my entrance and exit to the piece, I don’t know exactly how I will get myself properly in the frame with no one to tell me if I’m off. This wont be a problem as much on the group project, but I am concerned about this for the first try.

Blogging in my underpants

It seems to me, having read some of the posts as well as the articles, that video journalism involves a see-saw. Yup. That's right. Like on the playground when we were kids and the woodchips would get all displaced because of the mass displacement that thousands of stupid little feet caused and acually make the see-saw more ineffeffective thanif it were on some sort of rubber base or even concrete. Run on!

Anyway, this see-saw is more of a metaphorical one...I can't stand those damn woodchips. Video journalism invovles a see-saw of balance of premeditation when going to report a story. On one end is total premeditation. On the other is no premeditation. In the middle is the fulcrum...I don't know what that would be called in this metaphor. These two modes need to be balanced perfectly to get the best story. If a reporter goes in with no premeditation about where the story is going to go and just hopes that the story comes to them, then they will get nowhere, and have a lot of fun editing 5 interviews with kids about how they most liked the clown that rode the elephant and jumped over the lava pit.

On the contrary, if one goes in with an unwavering idea of what they want and are not flexible at all, then they will not be good interviewers, and they will not get what they want. After a few interviews of getting more kids enjoying clowns doing jumping jacks with bowling pins getting thrown at them, the premeditated journalist gets frustrated. The questions become "Did you think that the TIGER WAS NEAT?! HMMMM??!!!" and other yes and no questions that do not lead to sound bites (which I have definitely been guilty of in the past, to a lesser extent), simply to get people to say what they want them to say.

When one enjoys the see saw the most is when it is going up and down smoothly and both are working with each other (well aside from when one kid falls off, but again, I have no clue where that fits in this oh so simple metaphor). A video journalist needs to do both to succeed, get the best story, and occasionally, enjoy the circus.

Walking the Line

Focus, focus, focus-BUT don't focus so much that you form preconceived notions of what the story is. I feel like I'm walking the line. With a print story, I could have an idea, but change it halfway through the interview-no harm done. Visual is different. Like the readings reiterated-you need a focus. You don't want your story to be so broad that it spreads itself too thin (anyone remember that "jack of all trades, master of none"-you don't want this to be your story). However, at the same time, you don't want to go in so determined to find the story your looking for that you misinterpret what is truly happening. Take for instance, my project. I went in to the school cafeteria with my camera expecting to take pictures of fryers, but they weren't there. It took me a little while to shake off my initial focus of the story and find a new one.

The technical issues addressed in the readings were helpful, but nothing is better than trial and error. Someone can tell you how to do something-those guidelines do help (especially with the preplanning process)-but nothing is better than physically having to do it yourself.

I agree with what Meghan said. In print, you should know what your story's focus is before going into the field, but if you're still playing around with ideas, you can narrow the frame of the story once you get back to the newsroom. Video is so different - if you just show up with a camera, it's likely you won't get the shots you need to make the story as compelling as possible. I know I ran into this problem my first time out, and I'm pre-planning from now on.

Of all the readings, I found "Writing the Package" most helpful. The blueprint helped "click" into place what we're working towards. I also have a better understanding now of what goes into a package versus what goes into a simple story. We just visited KOMU with J2100H, and it definitely makes more sense now why the anchors' lead-ins would essentially be the report. At the time, it didn't seem like the best way to tell the story, but thinking back, there wasn't anything a reporter's narrative could have added to the story.

Television Tunnelvision

One recurring theme in all of the readings we were assigned was "focus". The idea is simple enough: without a specific, narrow focus, your story can quickly become a jumble of ideas, quotes, and video clips. No focus, no impact.

But like many things in journalism, there is a fine line that we must try to walk. How much focus is too much? If we go into a story with a extremely narrow, preconceived notion of what the story is and what is the best way to shoot it, you might miss some very important details and opportunities.

There's no question, though, that having a plan for each story is important. Trying to gather all the pieces of the puzzle and throwing them together before a deadline is almost impossible in visual journalism. We should focus on our focus, but not ignore the possibility that a story might not go as we envision it will.

This can be challenging at times, but no one said convergence journalism was easy. That might have something to do with why convergence journalists are in such high demand.

Focus, or there will be a ruckus

The advice in the Poynter article was so key: Focus on what you are doing, so you are sure to get what you need. In journalism, it is folly to stay focused on a story you seek even as what actually happens goes in a completely different direction. Flexibility is the key. At each of the stops on my semetster project on Truman the Tiger, I had a certain expectation, a certain goal of exactly what I wanted to achieve. Something other than that happened every time.

The e-res article did a good job of laying out a video story with a beginning, middle and end. With print, you seek the best lead. With photos, you seek the best impact. Video is no different, as story structure becomes even more important than any other medium due to the time constraints and thus the need to tell a story quickly and concisely. It's not like people can rewind or re-read, unless they tape TV news. And who does that other than journalism professionals?

I will join the chorus of those who are glad to have these articles to refer to as I construct my next video.

The Anal Retentive Video Journalist

To be honest, you can get away with passive reporting in the print world. You can let the story come to you in the field instead of actively pursuing it and piece your thoughts together afterwards. I’m learning that this doesn’t work very well in visual media. To write for a visual package, you have to know what your story is beforehand in order to get images that will do most of the talking for you. You have to be able to interview differently to be able to get that sound bite. This active reporting is good. It gives the story and the reporter focus. I think it’s also a little bit dangerous, though. Knowing almost exactly what you want to say about your subject can lead to a failure to notice differences between your presumptions and what is actually occurring. If you make an inaccurate assumption, your attempt at good reporting may be counterproductive, as over-preparation could cause you to overlook the truth that you are attempting to report.

Strengths of Video

Writing for a visual medium seems to be one of the hardest, and most rewarding, skills a journalist can acquire. In video taping for my story, I realized how difficult it actually is to look through a camera and imagine what your piece will look like when it has been edited. The challenges only mount when you return to the lab and begin the daunting task of editing sections of tape together to form some type of coherent package. Making a bunch of individual shots smoothly tell a story is tough. Still, I feel video, especially online video, is one of the most rewarding mediums. It has the ability to combine the best elements of other media outlets for truly effective stories. I think convergence students who are strong in video will be in high demand.

Random musings...

I'm going to have to agree with everybody else who has posted and say that I feel like an idiot for not having read this or known about "preplanning" about two weeks ago. It makes so much more sense now! I finally feel like there is sort of a blueprint or at least general guidelines and that this project doesn't have to be (or, more specifically, it definitely shouldn't be) just a shot in the dark. The main difficulty for me lies in the whole "field work" area and having to think on your feet to find ways to keep the story going. I'm hoping this will be something that comes with experience and that more opportunities to shoot/create packages will lead to a better understanding of what to look for to create those segueways or find incredible closing shots. One thing about the article that sort of confused me was when he was describing possible shots for a visual of "healthy foods taste better." One suggested sequence was a woman reaching for the apple, checking out, and then cutting the apple at home to give to her daughter. What I'm wondering about is how you get to the point of going into her home? Is it really that easy for a journalist to approach a person in a store and follow him/her into his/her own personal life? I don't think I could ever feel comfortable doing or asking for that and it startled me a little to realize that it must actually happen. I guess that's not about *writing* for a visual medium but more the gathering of footage, but it's still something to think about.

Pointers from Poynter

I read the Poynter Institute’s “How to Focus, Interview, and Get the Story Told” and found that I agreed with a lot of the tips they gave. It also made me think of how I’ve handled my own project.

The first topic they discussed was focus. I definitely think my story on Girl Scouts lacked focus from the beginning. I had trouble contacting the people I wanted to contact, and the people I contacted originally have stopped replying to my phone calls and emails. It definitely didn’t end up the way I had envisioned.

Then they discussed theme. Scanlan mentioned that you should be able to sum up your story in one word, and I am pretty positive I couldn’t have even done that before I went out to find the Girl Scout story. It made me realize that of course it didn’t have any focus as a finished product, because I never even thought about its focus before I started.

McCombs also talked about focusing your information, which is especially difficult when people (as opposed to facts) are involved. She advised to watch out for the little interesting things, because they distract from the focus. However, this is one of the reasons I love convergence. I have always liked feature-based stories just because you have more freedom as a reporter to tell the story you want to tell, and with convergence you have more mediums to do so. You can have your story, captions, photos, video, audio, whatever you need. And it’s all online, so you have nearly unlimited content space.

The next topic I related to was their interviewing tips. I go back and forth on my ability as an interviewer. I always thought I was good at it. I can talk to people, and listen to what they say. I can ask follow up questions pretty easily too. But this semester, as I was trying to cut out my questions, I found it difficult. Sometimes their answers didn’t make sense without my question in front of it.

I’m also not a very outspoken person, so the ‘just go up and talk to them’ approach to interviewing is very difficult for me. I feel very intrusive just asking people questions. I think it is the Midwest politeness coming out in me. I think if they don’t want to talk about it, it’s not my place to ask. That probably doesn’t cut it in journalism.

I also liked what Murphy had to say about adding ‘gee whiz’ and genuine moments into your video. This is probably because of my flair for the feature piece. However, this probably isn’t always true for the hard-hitting, ‘see it at 10 tonight’, stories. I feel like this almost contradicts what McCombs had to say about not letting the interesting facts get in the way of your story. Yes, I love these moments that Murphy is talking about, but do they distract from your story? Should you save them for a different kind of story? Perhaps.

Ouch!

Why didn't I read "Writing the Package" this last week??! It pains me - but not too much. In retrospect, I understand the necessity of focusing your story before you shoot the video for it.
If you don't, you might fall into what Lynda called the Grocery Store phenomenon: an unfocused story which in presenting entirely too much information becomes forgettable for audiences.

Before I read this article, I had to try to produce my stories based on what felt like a natural order. While I think imitating what I have seen before has worked decently, having a template to give me a skeletal structure for my longer video piece will be invaluable.

On a side note, did anyone else hear Lynda talk about the Nazi march tonight on KBIA? I did an aural double take.

Writing for a Visual Media...

(from Evan Groll)

I think the whole format/package for writing a visual story makes sense. As Liz had mentioned I feel like the whole 'blueprint' of a visual story can be restictive and sort of dull, but it is effective and a good starting point. The lead to visual lead is key, capturing the audience's attentions right away (as with any media) is always the main focus. I think having a rough idea of what one needs at each step of the package allows reporters to do their job far more easily and efficiently. Following such an outline maintains the focus of the story, and with visual media I feel that often the focal point of a piece can be unclear when the story is not organized properly. Just as in print, visual stories need the voices to tell their story. Not only is this important to communicate the story, but in the visual content, vocies are presented with faces and body language, enhancing the personal feel of each source.

Writing for Visual Media

After reading the E-res chapter entitled “Writing the Package,” one thing that surprised me is how similar writing for a visual medium and writing for a print medium can be. I always assumed that television stories were written entirely after footage had been shot and that pre-planning a story was out of the question due to the unpredictable nature of events. This article assured me that planning a package before shooting is possible and almost necessary for success. Without having a clear idea and clear focus of what you are looking for before heading out into the field, your story will likely turn into a random series of shots with no coherent order. Of course, pre-planning a visual story too extensively can be just as dangerous as not pre-planning at all. If a reporter covers an event with a specific story in mind before even arriving at the scene, he or she will likely limit what is shot and what is covered, consequently decreasing the overall variety and quality of the package.

I think that the formula for writing a clear and coherent story presented in this chapter will definitely help me plan my package before I begin shooting it this weekend. After capturing my footage, I will define my focus, write a lead, focus on the ideas that I want to communicate, and try to write a close before I even begin ordering my shots. Hopefully, this will guide my story formulaically and will make compiling the completed package much easier.

Effective storytelling, or stale formulas?

One of the weaknesses that I saw in my own experience with video is the lack of preplanning I did. In “Writing the Package,” and “How to Focus, Interview, and Get the Story Told,” the importance of preplanning was driven home. Coming from a print background, it’s easy to preplan the interview questions that you need to ask. As I found out when going out to shoot video, I lacked the ability to think of the story visually and preplan the visual questions that I would need to answer for my audience. These two articles showed that knowing what your story needs visually at the outset allows your shoot to be more productive and successful.

But as I looked at the advice in “Writing the Package,” I was troubled. Is broadcast news just a sort of formula that you plug in new words and shots into? While it’s easy to create a successful package with this sort of ‘lead-in, visual lead, main points, close,’ is anything lost in the formulation of commercial news? Will this formula ever get reconfigured, and when - when the audience gets bored with these traditions?

I also found a similar type of formula while working in radio. Maybe I’m biased towards print, but I see print as having a less formulaic approach to storytelling, with a general structure to all stories, but not a tight blueprint.

Effective storytelling, or stale formulas?

One of the weaknesses that I saw in my own experience with video is the lack of preplanning I did. In “Writing the Package,” and “How to Focus, Interview, and Get the Story Told,” the importance of preplanning was driven home. Coming from a print background, it’s easy to preplan the interview questions that you need to ask. As I found out when going out to shoot video, I lacked the ability to think of the story visually and preplan the visual questions that I would need to answer for my audience. These two articles showed that knowing what your story needs visually at the outset allows your shoot to be more productive and successful.

But as I looked at the advice in “Writing the Package,” I was troubled. Is broadcast news just a sort of formula that you plug in new words and shots into? While it’s easy to create a successful package with this sort of ‘lead-in, visual lead, main points, close,’ is anything lost in the formulation of commercial news? Will this formula ever get reconfigured, and when - when the audience gets bored with these traditions?

I also found a similar type of formula while working in radio. Maybe I’m biased towards print, but I see print as having a less formulaic approach to storytelling, with a general structure to all stories, but not a tight blueprint.

ABC International News: Violence In Afghanistan

I watched an ABC News video titled "Violence on the Rise in Afghanistan." I thought it did an excellent job combining b-roll footage into interviews along with news elements like sound blips from President Bush and even footage from a video released by Al-Qaeda, which tied into the clear, cohesive message of the story well.

I found two major problems with the way ABC does their video. First of all, they have an annoying "ABC News" super in the bottom-right corner at all times, which is distracting and annoying to me. Secondly, they fail to identify just who it is they interview in the clip (or if they did, it is buried such that most users would never know)! Whoops!

Edit 3/3/07: I forgot to mention another major problem I had with ABC News's video features. They provide a handy playlist with nested programs to pick which clips you want to play, but they plan an absolutely obscene amount of advertising with each clip! If I hadn't already decided to use ABC International News for this assignment beforehand, there is no way as a casual user I would have stayed through the near minute-long string of advertisements (one after another, without any indication of when they would stop or how long they would run) to see only a little more than that length of content. They have some nerve making users sit through that much advertising for their content. That's all.

Gore Criticized for High Electric Bills

By Sarah Damian

I watched an Associated Press video online about Al Gore’s high electric bills. The reporter’s voice was very clear and pleasant to follow along with. I know that online news video has to keep listeners’ interest, but I felt a certain urgency in the package; it was a bit speedy, and the extra quick pace almost made it seem like it was put together just as fast when I noticed how some audio was cut off and overlapped by the succeeding clip.

The video montage at the beginning was well done, with one clip flowing into the next as the reporter mentioned Gore’s documentary and appearance at the Oscars. The nat sound was good as well, with the voice of Gore in an interview softly in the background, bringing you to the scene but not distracting you from the message in the reporter’s voice over.

There was much use of titles over pictures of Gore’s Nashville mansion. I think with all the statistics in the package, having words with the audio can be a helpful supplement for the benefit of the viewer’s understanding. But after awhile, I thought it was a bit much and detracted from the professional look of the story. I enjoyed the graphic though showing the ways that Gore was being environmental-friendly. With a green background, the graphic listed his use of wind-generated energy, methane gas, and solar panels.

So overall it was a cohesive piece. The B-roll correlated with the sound bites, and despite a couple choppy audio cuts, the story flowed well, made sense, and dealt with the most immediate newsworthy information.

Daycare is poor

The internet video news story that I watched was "Child-care centers deemed 'too lax' across the U.S" published by MSNBC.com. It was about a minute long, and was in the style of the prototypical TV news story. It did the job of getting across the point that apparently studies have shown that non-parental child care places are not quite the bees knees in some places. They named one or two states where they are particularly bad. This is about all they did. They repeated the same stock footage 3 times, and did not really get into any detail on the facts of the story. Nobody was interviewed, and I did not come away impressed at all. I did not see if it was accompanied with a print story, but I hope it was, because that would have given me the details, study showings, and interviews that I would have liked. Not impressed.

They lured me in with the headline...

I watched the news video titled, "Sleep is the new Sex." Ok, ok, ok...so I was completely caught by the somewhat outrageous title. I wasn't expecting a very good story, but I decided to watch anyway-I had to know how they justified their headline. The video was laden with catchy music (that had something to do with sleep) that I recognized. I know of a certain teacher who doesn't like it...but I'll have to say, it made me want to watch (I like the song). Matt Lauer was the one conducting the interview-come to find out, the whole story was based on chronic insomnia and sleeping pills. I have no problem being honest, if the headline would have read, "America's Sleep Problem" or "Chronic Insomniacs"-I wouldn't have even noticed it.

I've noticed Lauer seems to get a lot of grief from people about not being a real "journalist," but in this story, I think he displayed great interview skills. The video opened with a casual interview with a doctor to describe what chronic insomnia was, had a feature story on a woman suffering from chronic insomnia, and then ended with Lauer and the doctor again. It was 7:29 long, but I was never bored. My critiques revolve around actual video quality-the screen was little and I couldn't figure out how to enlarge it. The shots that would be fading in and out on a normal TV were extremely gritty on the computer-this really got on my nerves. Some of the volumes of the commercials they showed about sleeping pills were too loud-almost completely drowned out the doctor who was speaking; this could just have been on the Internet version. Also, there was no way for me to send the web address to my friends (or post it in this blog). I would just have to tell you, go to msnbc.com, it's under NBC News Highlights: Today Video: Is sleep the new sex? And the main web page at msnbc is a little messy-kinda hard to find things. HOWEVER, overall, I was impressed by the story; I learned something.

If it were a text story, it would be boring. There is no other way to put it. I wouldn't hear that song in the beginning I really like. I wouldn't have seen the sleep pill commercials and been able to put the two together (No, "OOOH, that is what that medicine is for). My stereotype of a chronic insomniac before this video was someone who was slightly off or paranoid. The feature story was about a woman who was married, with one child, and a job. You could put that in text, but I still would have an image of what I thought she looked like (which is not the pretty normal blonde that was actually in the story). I wouldn't have stuck around to read the end either- I would have read the lead and determined that I was no longer interested.

Carter on the Web

I watched a video on NYTimes.com, where reporter Nicholas Kristof followed former President Jimmy Carter into Ethiopia. The former president is there to help find a cure for river blindness.

I thought this story was a very effective video for the web. First off, it was over seven minutes long, which is very long for a broadcast story, and probably would not have aired on television.

Another challenge the story faces is being just another human rights story out of Africa. Having the former president added some celebrity to the story, which would have helped both in print and on the web. You have to wonder, if Carter hadn’t been there, would they have even done the story?

Considering there are so many of these types of stories to come out of Africa, I have to wonder if people, even myself, would have took the time to read it in a text-only version. Probably not. The story was very personal, not just about the disease, but about the people. True, the personal element could have gone in the print version as well, but seeing their faces, hearing their voices, was very effective. You actually saw these peoples’ suffering and actually saw the former president’s concern.

Another thing I noticed was the tone of the story. Overall the images were very peaceful, even showing beautiful running waterfalls. But the reporter’s voice definitely added to that tone. I expected to hear the normal broadcaster’s voice, but instead he was softer and very informal. At times, it was like he was making it up off the top of his head. His reporting seemed slower and more heartfelt, which couldn’t have been conveyed in a text-only version.

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b7d910b32:1110e0896d2:269d&fr_story=3b8984bd9cb95b599a6c6bfebfbe7c0f8309198e&st=1172765739672&mp=FLV&cpf=false&fvn=9&fr=030107_110201_7d910b32x1110e0896d2xbef&rdm=160083.16220719516

Kristof on Maternal Mortality

I always think the New York Times has the best videos. Here's a good example of "backpack journalism." Kristof's page not only has a story with photographs, but those photos are videos in waiting, plus there's links to his blog with a chance to comment. I watched this video. It tells the story of one woman fighting maternal mortality. It narrowed in on the original broader story, which added to my interest and understanding of maternal mortality. What bothered me about this video is that it ran a little longer (over 3 minutes) and I felt like stopping the video. The video for the most part follows one shot of the subject, and the visual images were not very interesting. The most interesting part of the video happened in the last few seconds, making me wonder what happened next - but the video didn't tell me.

I did like the fact that the video was not just a TV report put on the web. Every time I see one of those, I wonder why I am watching TV on my computer. I think videos on the web should take a new angle on the news story and not just recycle the news in a different format, and this video did a good job of avoiding that format.