> Video, video, video. In 2007, the ‘V’ word was the new craze for newspapers internationally. And this is bound to continue in 2008. But just how much video should newspapers seek? Is it an optional plus, should all reporters be assigned to capture video, or should a newsroom even have its in-house studio?

So asks the Editors Weblog as it starts a three part analysis of video in the newsroom.

Part one sets the scene and address the doubts some have over the appropriateness of video by quoting Lucas Grindley.

“What’s worse is producing that crappy video probably required a large portion of the day for an entire group of people. Video is not within newspaper editors’ core competency,”

For the Editors Weblog that approach doesn’t fit.

[that approach] is out of line with the current definition of newspapers’ core competency: delivering content to the audience in whichever medium suits best the story, on whichever platform and time suits best the audience. The question for editors is not whether or not, but how to implement the seventh art within their newsroom, and how much importance – and consequently, time and money – they should give to it.

Medium and Platform?

The rest of the articles should be an interesting read but I’m wondering just how many newspapers would agree with that* ‘current definition’.* OK, “delivering content to the audience in whichever medium suits best the story”. Yes, I can see that. But “on whichever platform and time suits best the audience” is a big one.

Investing in a capacity to deliver stories in different mediums and a range of platforms strike me as two different things.

Or am I wrong?