The video journalism triangle

How do we balance the compromises that come from the conflicting demands of video journalism?

There’s a principle in project management called the Iron Triangle. You may have seen it expressed as the good, fast, cheap compromise. Want it fast and good? It’s not going to be cheap! Want it good and cheap? You’ll have to wait!

I’ve been thinking about that since I started teaching video journalism this term.

 In my mind, there’s a set of principles that make for good video journalism:

• Good video journalism is built on good journalism.
• Good video journalism is built with good practical skills.
• Good video journalism is built for an audience that expects both.

 When I teach, I try to balance these points—not just focussing on their individual importance, it’s how they are connected.

And at the heart of this is an inescapable set of compromises. Journalists work to deadlines and within ethical and legal codes that impact every decision we make. This will often lead to practical, technical and editorial trade-offs. We make video the way we do because we are doing journalism!

The Iron Triangle feels like a good way to explore and interoagte these tensions.

Instead of Good, Fast, and Cheap, the video journalism triangle has:

1. Production Quality – The technical execution:  visuals, sound, editing, and overall presentation.
2. Journalism Quality – The depth, accuracy, and integrity of the reporting: thorough research, strong storytelling, and ethical and legal considerations.
3. Audience Value – Viewer engagement and understanding. What they take away from the story that they can use.

 Just like in project management, you’ll rarely be able to have all three. There are always trade-offs:

• High Production + High Journalism = High Effort, but Limited Reach?
  A beautifully produced, well-researched piece might take too long to produce, meaning the audience has moved on by the time it’s finished. High production costs could also make it hard to sustain.
• High Production + High Audience Value = Shallow Journalism?
  It may be visually stunning, but does it put emotional appeal or entertainment over depth and accuracy?
• High Journalism + High Audience Value = Lower Production Quality?
  A compelling, high-impact story might need to get out as quickly as possible, sacrificing production polish in favour of speed.

 We see that play out in video journalism all the time. The High Production + High Journalism category pretty much defines long-form documentary! Meanwhile, shaky, mobile phone footage might make it on air—not because it looks great, but because what was said and who said it matters more than production quality.

Finding the Balance

Ideally, every piece would find an optimal balance—the incenter of the triangle.  But in the real world, journalists don’t always have the luxury of finding that ideal. Constraints like deadlines, budgets, and platform limitations mean that trade-offs are inevitable. There’s no perfect solution or one size fits all.

For me and my students, however, we are lucky. We have the time to learn, experiment, and reflect on what working towards that optimal balance looks like—even if we won’t always achieve it.

At the end of the day, I still think that:

• Good video journalism is built on good journalism.
• Good video journalism is built with good practical skills.
• Good video journalism is built for an audience that expects both.

But thinking about the triangle is perhaps a way of remembering that the best video journalism is made by people who understand and learn how to navigate the inevitable compromises they will face.