Quality vs. Quantity

Earlier this week, a couple of online media types got into a discussion about a topic that rolls through my mind frequently: quality vs. quantity. In terms of online media, that discussion usually boils down to one particular area of practice: video.

Mindy McAdams must have been reading my mind (or the ICM blog “draft post” queue, because today she lays down a series of questions about online video. Below are my answers.

1. Should print reporters shoot video?
   Yes. It’s long past time that we can assume that the printed word or even the still photograph can adequately capture all the information a reader/viewer might want to know about a specific situation.
2. Can journalists accept the low video quality produced by ultra-cheap ($129) video cameras?
   Depends on the journalist. I know some broadcasters (and academics) who wince at the quality of video on the Internet, even the video produced by the Washington Post’s Emmy winner. But I know a growing number who are comfortable (there’s that word again) with lower “quality” (I think it helps to define that term more precisely) video for the web.
3. Should the video be edited, or posted “raw”?
   Yes. Sometimes a particularly breathtaking video could be posted “raw.” I’m thinking especially about the death of journalist Brad Wills - powerful video made moreso by the lack of editing. However, not all video deserves such treatment. Sometimes (most of the time?), video needs editing for content, length, or narrative structure.
   
4. Does the popularity of YouTube video indicate anything at all about journalistic online video?
   I think it does, but more in a cultural sense. The PFKAA (People Formerly Known as the Audience) are less hung up on the exceptional “quality” of video if the story is compelling than are contest judges and videographers who spent years honing their craft, only to be upstaged by “prosumers” or amateurs.
5. What should be the content of reporter-shot video? E.g., is a talking head okay?
   Again, the content depends on the context. In some instances, a talking head might work. If a city council member says something totally outrageous, I don’t care if the video is a three-minute talking head. OTOH, most stories would benefit from more “b-roll” video of the actual “thing” being explored. This sort of answers the question above about editing again.
6. Is doing it, and doing lots of it, more important right now? That is, will we learn more about what works best if we produce a large quantity of video (vs. tinkering away to make it sound and look better)?
   I think doing lots of it is important, because the format isn’t set yet. As I discussed once with Cade White, there is the potential here for a different form of journalistic storytelling - whether it’s short-form, lower “quality,” or the storytelling itself that’s different. But we haven’t arrived at a good “best practice” yet. At least, I don’t think we have. Others may disagree.
   Also, the old saying is that “practice makes perfect.” The way journalists will learn to do better video is by doing lots of video, not constantly tweaking one video.
   In this sense, I’m reminded of one of my favorite comedy shows of all time - M*A*S*H. The doctors at the Army hospital were not there to make nice sutures or perfectly finesse an open-heart surgery. They were there to do meatball surgery and get the patients back to proper hospitals alive. There’s something of that attitude in the “more video now” argument put forth by Howard Owens, for instance.
   I should qualify that I think this paradigm (quantity vs. quality) is primarily geared toward those who are producing video footage as a smaller part of their overall job - like beat reporters. There should be a higher standard for multimedia journalists like photographers and videographers, most of whose overall job is intertwined with visual storytelling.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite