Defining newsaper video: Video Illustration
Nearly a year ago, Andy Dickinson did a post labeling three types of newspaper video: Disruptive, channel and multimedia. At the time, I suggested “attached video” was a better label than “disruptive,” being that disruption is a strategy not a category.
That post influenced a slide in my internal video training presentation. My three categories of video have been: Attached, story, and webcast.
Attached is that short video meant to embed on a story page. Story video is the full story, no text needed, and webcast is that sort of thing that usually has an anchor/host and covers more than one topic.
Like Howard I was influenced by the discussion around the post and subsequent development of it. Things got a little complicated. But over time things have developed and my slides have simplified to: Clip, Bulletin and Package.
The definitions are similar to Howard’s.
Clip content has no editorial context other than the context that it gets from the story it’s embedded in or the link and teaser parapgraph you followed to get to it. Bulletin content is, like Howard’s webcast, anchor/host led and packaged content is self-contained story video (script, broll and all the other stuff you would expect to see on a TV style package).
You can see the similarities. I could say great minds and all that but it’s more likely that, surprisingly, there is some coherent approach surfacing in the industry.
OK, let’s not get too carried away here. It’s a consistent approach to one of the types of video: Attached/Clip video. Or as Howard is now calling it ‘video illustration’
**Video Illustration **
Others have identified the approach, searching for a name.
Paul Bradshaw called it moving pictures“where video is added to a text story as an illustration, without narration but in the same way as a still image might be used.” . He used the image of the Daily Prophet from the Harry Potter films to illustrate his thinking. Video whirlwind David Dunkley Gyimah also talks a lot about working video in to the ‘page’* (sorry Dave, lost the link to the post where you talk about this)*
I like the definition a lot as it fits with my view that this kind of video works better when it is placed alongside or, at worst, linked directly from text content on a page. When Im talking through this with people, I also point out that its the one that is often least taxing in the newsroom.
It’s commonly content that has been generated by a user, supplied by a source(fire brigade, cctv, police) or a quick interview snippet. And regardless of the way it’s generated it really only needs topping and tailing around the best ‘clip’ to make it ready for the web.
This chimes for Howard as well.
Story video may have its time and place, but unlike some, I don’t believe that is the sum and whole of what online video can or should be.
The point of quick-production, reporter-shot video should be to illustrate in a way that words alone cannot. Raw is good. Heavy editing is a waste of time. Context is a distraction. The point is not to capture the whole story. It is to illustrate a story.
Content that fits the strategy
Now before the anti-disruption league get all upset with my apparent support for the p&s approach (none of the approaches are the sum and the whole) let me explain why this works for me.
Raw is good, heavy editing a waste because it doesn’t have to work alone. Context a distraction because its being given by other elements on the page. It makes the best of the unique approach the web offers – different media on one page. It is multimedia in approach and practice
But beyond it being a great use of multimedia, I like this approach because the strategy, process and results all fit and are proved to work. The concept of video illustration works even if you advocate the longer form, videographer approach. A video illustration ‘clip’ can be plucked from the raw footage to embedd in a teaser story and make that web first stuff video rich.
So whether you call it clip, attached, moving pictures or video illustration. It’s an approach that transcends the debate which ever side of the video fence you sit.