The Art of Finding Good Sources (Plural!)

Cision is a global PR institution that recently conducted a U.S. survey to figure out where reporters and editors are getting their information these days -- especially now that there are fewer journalists and an overabundance of data to sort through and verify.

It probably comes as no surprise that they are coming to depend on the immediacy and ease of using online social media sources for research.

According to a report synopsis by Jack Loechner on his Center for Media Research blog:

Among the journalists surveyed, 89% said they turn to blogs for story research, 65% to social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, and 52% to microblogging services such as Twitter. The survey also found that 61% use Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia. Most journalists said that social media were important (15%) or somewhat important (40%) for reporting and producing the stories they wrote.

The groups placing the highest levels of importance on social media for reporting and producing stories were journalists who spend most of their professional time writing for Websites . Those at Newspapers and Magazines reported this less often. The differences between Magazine journalists and Website journalists is statistically significant.

While the results demonstrate the fast growth of social media as a well-used source of information for mainstream journalists, the survey also made it clear that reporters and editors are acutely aware of the need to verify information they get from social media.

84% said social media sources were "slightly less" or "much less" reliable than traditional media; 49% say social media suffers from "lack of fact checking, verification and reporting standards."

One Source Does Not a Story Make

Without denigrating the validity of Cision's presumptive conclusion -- that journalists therefore need assistance more than ever from professional PR specialists -- let's also not forget that journalists are duty-bound to garner info and quotes the old-fashioned way, by banging on doors and wearing out shoe leather, even if metaphorically.

Though the survey didn't specifically address broadcast or video journalism, we must say that we see way too many video stories that depend solely on one source. These would never pass muster as text stories, and any reputable editor would kick them back to the lazy reporter. Videojournalists should always look for opposing viewpoints, or at least alternative perspectives. One simple rule of thumb is, "Let's hear from the people above, below, and around the central character." Who affects him, and who does he affect?

So if your story is about a teacher, let's hear from students and parents, the school principal, alumni, other teachers. In addition to seeing what others have to say, let's unobtrusively watch the protagonist interacting with other sources -- in their own environment, with natural sound. Showing, and not just telling, makes stories not just more credible but also more memorable.

Think of the movies and novels you enjoy, and how boring and meaningless they would be if each one was about only one character. The same holds true for videojournalism. Multiple perspectives and meaningful interactions are key to successful nonfiction storytelling. One source is not enough.

Complete survey results: 2009 Social Media & Online Usage Study

(Tip of the cyberhat to Deborah Potter's Advancing the Story blog.)

How Do You Correct Errors in Video Stories?

Craig Silverman is a Montreal-based journalist and author who specializes in mistakes.

Not his mistakes -- yours. And other journalists. More accurately (and we do want to be especially careful today), he writes a column, maintains a blog, and has even written an entire book about factual errors committed by reporters... and how to prevent them.

His book's eponymous Website, Regret The Error, "reports on media corrections, retractions, apologies, clarifications and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the press. I aim to provide a non-partisan resource to serve both the press and the public; my overall goal is to help make news reporting more accurate and transparent."

All admirable, to be sure, but it got us wondering. The most difficult thing about correcting an error in a text story is eating humble pie. Technically speaking, it's easy enough to issue a correction or even an entire new story -- whether for print or online. (Web protocol is to fix the mistake, and then add a note indicating what was altered or amended, and why.) Whether it's a misspelling, misleading quote, misidentification, or any of the other myriad ways in which humans can mess up relaying information, composing the correction (and apology) may be tricky, but keyboarding and copying/pasting text is not.

However, what happens when there's an error in an online video story? Not as simple to fix! Depending on the nature of the gaffe, you probably have to yank it offline, and then... what? Excise the offending footage? Add explanatory chyron titles? Re-shoot new scenes or interviews? No matter what, re-editing a video is a lot more time-consuming and labor-intensive than re-editing a text story. Or should you just add a text correction next to the video? (But then what if that video is "shared" on Facebook, or embedded on another Website? The text Band-Aid won't accompany the flawed video.)

Hypothetically anything your camera "saw" should be "true." But we all know that footage can be edited to skew or alter reality, especially by juxtaposing scenes (deliberately or inadvertently) in a way that could force a viewer to draw a false cause-and-effect conclusion.

Plus, the subjects you interview can make mistakes, which may not be called to your attention until after the video is posted. Then what? Go back and re-conduct the interview? Replace the old one with the new one? And, if so, let the viewer know this is a corrected version?

Even the reporter's own voiceover narration can accidentally incorporate a wrong date or statistic. Should it then be re-written and re-recorded to the exact length of the audio track it needs to replace?

In short, given the enormous number of ways in which errors can creep into a video story, frankly we're amazed that, even after viewing thousands of non-fiction videos, we've never encountered a "video correction." Is it because they're all so perfect? Or because it's too much work to fix relatively minor errors, so they're just left in? Or because it's too much work to fix errors, and so the wayward video is just removed from the Website altogether? Or because the videos are fixed, and it's just not formally called to anybody's attention?

Given the proliferation of professional videojournalism, we'd like to hear some real-world stories about how mistakes are corrected in that medium. Additionally, let us know if your department or organization has established guidelines or protocols for dealing with video errors when they do arise.

LINKS:

* Craig Silverman's Website

* Regret the Error Website

* Regret the Error book

* Regret the Error column (Columbia Journalism Review)

* Regret the Error 'Accuracy Checklist' (pdf)

* Poynter interview with Craig Silverman

Tip of the cyberhat to Advancing the Story!

Nielsen: Online Video Viewing Up 26% in Oct.

More good news, to corroborate the ComScore blog item below:

The Nielsen Company reported overall online video usage and top online brands ranked by video streams for October 2009. Year-over-year, unique viewers, total streams, streams per viewer and time per viewer were up, led by a 26 percent growth in total streams.

Click on the image below to see charts for "Overall Online Video Usage (U.S.)" and "Top Online Brands ranked by Video Streams for October 2009."


AdvancingTheStory.com notes: "Facebook is now the third most popular place to watch video online in the world! It seems to me that this is another area of opportunity for news organizations to disseminate content to expanded audiences."

Want a Wide Angle Lens for Your Flip?

One common complaint about Flip camcorders is that they don't have jacks for external mikes, so you have to hold them extremely close to your subjects if you want to get good audio. Other common quibbles are that they have limited 2x digital zoom, and that without image stablization, most handheld shots can look wobbly.

You don't often hear Flip shooters yearn for a wider angle lens, but that's what Russ Roca wanted, and that's what he got -- by figuring out how to attach one himself.

Southern California-based Roca, who combines his passions for bicycling and photography, reports:

The lens on the Flip is about 38mm by most reports. It’s a pretty boring/normal focal length. Not quite the length for narrow depth of field and not wide enough to make dynamic feeling wide shots. I’m a photojournalist at heart and I see everything wide. If I could live with one lens it would probably be a 24mm.

So Roca hacked the Flip to better accommodate his needs.

I bought a cheapie Sunpak wide-angle lens adapter kit made for more sophisticated camcorders. It came with a series of step-down rings. I took one of the rings and roughed it up with sandpaper (from a patch kit) and superglued it to the front of the Flip. (Be sure to glue it so you can still remove the battery cover!). This gave the front element some threads so I could screw on the wide angle lens!

Now you have a Flip Ultra that can shoot a “normal” focal length that you can convert into a wide-angle action machine. It gives your footage a bit more dynamic feel and it also mitigates the small camera shake quite a bit! I used this setup for my recent trip and it worked great.

Here's his demonstration of the difference between the lenses:



And here's a cycling video he shot with his self-designed Flip wide angle:



UPDATE: Roca is on an extended bike tour of the U.S. with his girlfriend, "with the goal of connecting with, and collecting the stories of, people who followed a calling to live their lives in unique ways."

Through photos, interviews, sketches, hand-bound books, and an extensive web presence, Laura (an art jewelry maker) and Russ (a photographer) will compile example after example of lives less ordinary – independent artisans and makers, small business proprietors, community activists and more.

Roca's ingenuity and curiosity should carry him far. You can follow his adventures on his multimedia blog, The Path Less Pedaled.

(Tip of the cyberhat to "Advancing the Story" for the link to this story.)

Sound Advice: Shoot With Your Ears

In her report, "Shoot With Your Ears," NewsLab's Deborah Potter addresses the importance of audio in online video, sharing invaluable tips from pros:

Every picture should have a sound to convey the full experience of what it was like to be there. That’s what visual storytelling does best. But if you don’t capture crisp, clear natural sound, you can’t share that experience with the audience.

But Potter goes beyond the usual admonishments about good mikes and headphones, and offers examples of when and why you should put audio in the foreground. She shares examples of award-winning visual journalists who actually prioritized capturing their stories' sounds, and then shot the video afterwards to go along with it.

One reporter advocates timing your questions so that your subject's response will be accompanied by appropriate natural sounds (e.g. the crack of a baseball bat). In some instances she cites, the stories were actually edited and built around the sounds, not the images. The audio becomes the glue that holds the story together.

In short, good videojournalists know to listen for a good story, not just watch for one.

Deborah Potter is a veteran journalism trainer, reporter and writer. She founded NewsLab, a non-profit journalism resource center, in 1998, and is co-author of "Advancing the Story: Broadcast Journalism in a Multimedia World."

Lots more "sound advice" here.