Here's a movie I produced in about 30 minutes:

How is this helpful for journalists? I can think of a couple of uses for this. Suppose you are covering a court case where cameras aren't allowed in the courtroom. You could produce a "dramatic reading" with xtranormal. And editorial writers/cartoonists can have a field day with animated commentary.

For a writer who's too shy to go on camera, this would be a fun way to "tape" a video of a story/column.

Who knows what other opportunities there are for a software like this. Experiment. Have some fun while doing journalism. Any other ideas?

The Canon Vixia HF200

A couple of weeks ago,  I wrote a post about video cameras. In the comments to that post, Kathleen Flores, adviser at UT-El Paso, wrote:

I'm considering the Sanyo Xacti. It is only $160 but has no microphone/headphone inputs. I want to get something inexpensive so that I can purchase at least four or five cameras and equipment (I could make a mojo kit for $250) to make them accessible for our students. Has anyone used these or have any other suggestions. I would rather get more students doing some basic multimedia than just one or two using the more expensive equipment. Whenever a new student wants to use our more expensive equipment, I always shudder and hope they take care of it. I was thinking that this route would encourage more experimentation and participation.

I don't have any personal experience with that camera, but I do want to reiterate my personal preference in the quantity vs. quality debate as it regards video equipment: where possible, try to do both.

Budgets being what they are, it's sometimes impossible to purchase both prosumer and consumer quality cameras. But if it is possible, I'd recommend purchasing some consumer-level cameras for reporters to take out into the field and experiment with, and then get a couple of higher-end prosumer cameras for the photography staff, and people who really seem dedicated to exploring video online. The amount of control over the quality of the images and sound is vastly different between the two.

This is similar to the iMovie vs. Final Cut (use your imagination for the PC equivalent) debate. You can learn quite a lot with iMovie, and for most breaking news or quick turnaround work, it's a fine product. But if someone is really interested in video, a higher-end editing package is a worthwhile investment.

Thoughts?

Via Al Tompkins at Poynter, here are the guidelines for social media as proposed by the Radio and Television News Director's Association.

College journalists should perhaps pay special attention to this one:

• Avoid posting photos or any other content on any website, blog, social network or video/photo sharing website that might embarrass you or undermine your journalistic credibility. Keep this in mind, even if you are posting on what you believe to be a “private” or password-protected site. Consider this when allowing others to take pictures of you at social gatherings. When you work for a journalism organization, you represent that organization on and off the clock. The same standards apply for journalists who work on air or off air.

A few weeks ago at the Canadian University Press Conference, I made this point during a session on social media. If you don't want anything to embarrass you, don't put it on the Internet, or share it via cellphone. At all. In these days of ubiquitous cell phone cameras, it's almost impossible to control all access to something that might be embarrassing. If someone feels that they do want to share photos of themselves, they should use a personal account with controlled access. Even then, a photo could be "leaked" through other people who have access.

This is another handy set of guidelines to refer to when your media outlet is compiling social media guidelines.

I like most everything Frontline puts out. Digital_Nation is worth watching, just to be reminded how much of our lives are surrounded by, and wrapped up in, technology. Obviously, this has tremendous implications for student media. The first clip is embedded below. You can see the whole series, and associated content, here.

Specifically, the site urged student newspapers not to be lured into the promise of a paywall. While I'd say that's sound advice, I'm not sure there is much legitimate discussion amongst college newspapers to install paywalls while they're still offering their print product for free.

Nevertheless, the blog offered some tips about how college newspapers can keep afloat in uncertain times.

According to MediaShift:

1. Beef up off-campus reporting.

MediaShift says student journalists should make sure to step off campus, covering their communities.

But if the new journalism world is going to separate will-pay and won't-pay readers, some extra reporting about local and even national news could be a huge draw.

2. Extend Peer Content Sharing:

Look to fellow college newspapers to get make your content more well rounded.

We are living in a post-UWIRE world in which content distribution among college media is tougher than ever. (Though I have high hopes College News Network or a similar future initiative will save the day).

3. A "three point strategy"

1. Stick with local news reporting depth.
2. Add national news breadth.
3. Be an open window, not a pay wall.