Newspapers have to make a serious commitment to good video storytelling — not just getting moving pictures online —, given that there are plenty of others out there also after all those eyeballs.
Tom’s response? Forget it. Spend more time getting that USG stuff.
What are the chances of a reporter getting a video of that? Nil! What are the chances of a citizen with a cell phone grabbing some gruesomely good footage. Pretty darn good though it seems NOT to have happened here. Now here’s the real question for newspapers: if someone had grabbed that video of the tiger attacking the kid, would that person have thought of uploading it to the local paper? And if the person called the damn paper would anyone there (on Christmas Day mind you!) to know what to do to get that video from the citizen’s device, to the paper’s website, and under what terms and conditions of payment or not.
Good points. But I’m not sure that the public can be the great pot content we think they are if we don’t support them. I would be interested in seeing some stats about the number of people uploading content (the editorially useful ‘life’ video) Vs those who watch. But the point about being geared up for it is a good one.
My argument would be that perhaps the best way to get geared up and also be recognised as an organisation to contact with your video would be to be seen doing it yourself. People upload to youtube because they see other peoples stuff.
If you want them to show you theirs then you perhaps, need to show them a bit of yours.
Otherwise, and call me naive perhaps the audience may think that you might be a bit exploitative. No?