Beet.TV Videojournalism Panel Livestream

UPDATE: To see the archived videos and liveblog of this event, go here.

Watch this space on Tuesday, Feb. 1 at 9am ET (6am PT) for the livestream of Beet.TV's videojournalism panel, "Exploring the digital transformation of video news reporting and distribution."



The panelists consitute a veritable Who's Who of top execs at major media institutions. (See list here.)

On Twitter, you can follow Beet.TV via @Beet_TV . The hashtag for the livestream is #beetmeet.

See you there!

Beet.TV's Online Videojournalism Summit

Look at all these heavy-hitters who will be on the panel of Beet.TV's Online Video Journalism Summit, which will be streamed live on Feb. 1 (9-11:30 am ET).

The topic is "Exploring the digital transformation of video news reporting and distribution."

Moderaters:

Alex Weprin
Editor, TVNewser

Andy Plesser
Executive Producer, Beet.TV

Guest Speaker:

Chris Cillizza (pictured)
The Washington Post, "The Fix" blogger

Panelists:

Ann Derry - Editorial Director, Video and Television, The New York Times

Steven King - Editor of Video, The Washington Post

Mark Larkin - Vice President, CBSNews.com

Mark Lukasiewicz - Vice President, NBC News Specials and Digital Media, NBC News

Mosheh Oinounou - International Editor, Bloomberg Television

Kevin Roach - Vice President & Director of U.S. Broadcast News, The Associated Press

Anna Robertson - Director of Original Video and Social Media, Yahoo! News

Mike Stepanovich - Managing Editor, Reuters Insider

Mike Toppo - Senior Director for News Operations and Production, CNN.com

Jeff Whatcott - Senior Vice President, Brightcove

'I Am a Journalist... and I Play One on Web Video'

Anyone who's worked in a newsroom knows that real reporters and editors talk as elliptically, offhandedly and, um, colorfully as the rest of us. In casual conversation, real journalists in real life are as prone to misstatements, unintentional errors, and faux pas as the people they report and write about.

The trouble is, most people haven't worked in a newsroom. So any civilian who "spies" on the morning editorial meeting that kicks off the New York Times' daily TimesCast video might understandably surmise that journalists are a different breed of human, who speak fully formed crisp thoughts in complete grammatically correct sentences -- or what those in the trade call "quotes" (print) or "soundbites" (broadcast). It's almost as though we're watching scripted actors. They even dress more like spiffy TV and movie versions of newspaper staffs.

And therein lies the rub. It's always been an interesting ethical conundrum as to whether videojournalists (and this includes shooters for TV news and feature-length documentaries) should allow their subjects a "retake." Remember, most people are not comfortable nor accustomed to being in front of a camera, so they often stumble and bumble while trying to form a coherent response to an interviewer's question. They don't want to look bad, so they'll sometimes ask for a second chance, now that they have the answer formulated and ready to articulate.

On the one hand, it can be argued that it's the journalist's job to document reality on the first take; on the other, everyone deserves to be depicted fairly. But there is no simple solution, and only a hornet's nest of ancillary conundrums (e.g. what happens if the response changes on the second take?) Ultimately it's a question of whether the audience is getting a correct and truthful picture of the subject and the situation, and the reporter has to be the arbiter of that.

Now let's see what happens when the reporter is the subject. And not just the subject of an interview (which can be re-shot and/or edited to his advantage), but of a documentary-style scene (i.e. the editorial meeting). Compound that by the fact that what they are saying is relied upon for being factual. What if an editor misspeaks in an editorial meeting? Does he get a re-take (and should the audience be alerted to that)?

That's exactly what happened in one of the first TimesCasts -- and at the time, it wasn't much of a dilemma, because nobody noticed the gaffe until it was too late. Once caught, executive editor Bill Keller (pictured) remarked, “Agh. This is why I went into print rather than TV.”

As the Times itself reported:

Because “TimesCast” is taped and edited, Keller said he should have said, “cut,” and given a more careful summary of the story then in progress. Ann Derry, the editor in charge of the paper’s video operations, said, “Several pairs of eyes view every segment — and the entire show — before it goes up.” She said they all missed Keller’s errors and will “‘button up’ our procedures going forward.”

But what exactly does that entail? It seems that, no matter what, we will be treated to a Hollywoodization of an editorial meeting -- with real journalists, real stories, real situations... but ultimately a fake experience. Since everyone is camera-conscious to begin with, and subject to editing, it can never actually be a true fly-on-the-wall depiction.

Does it matter? Should it matter? What are your thoughts?

NY Times Launches Daily TimesCast Video

Have you noticed the New York Times' new TimesCast, which launched yesterday with very little fanfare?

It's a daily video, posted mid-day, that strives to offer a lunchtime roundup of the day's top headlines in under seven minutes -- delivered by the New York Times editors and reporters themselves.

The New York Times is so far ahead of the curve in online videojournalism that they produce more high-quality video stories in a day than most newspapers do in a month. And now this:

“It’s not just straight, breaking news, it’s talking about the way The New York Times is looking at the story – our analysis, our particular take on the story,” said Ann Derry, the paper’s editorial director for video and television. “We already produce a lot of video to go along with stories, but we felt the need to have a regular video news overview on the home page.”

The TimesCast shares the articulate intelligence and polished production values of those other videos in its classy stable.

It starts with the newspaper's 10:30 a.m. Page One meeting, with top editors in their neckties assembled around a large conference table, sequentially going over the day's roster of most important developing stories, patching in correspondents or bureau chiefs via speakerphone, as needed. It's intended to evoke a fly-on-the-wall feel, yet one can't help but wonder if the presence of cameras alters the proceedings. Do their editorial powwows really run so smoothly that they practically look scripted, or are these print journalists playing to the camera?

Then we cut to senior editor Jane Bornemeier interviewing executive editor Bill Keller, against a news room backdrop, about news highlights -- China censoring Google, Obama signing the health care bill, Clinton meeting Netanyahu. Then there are more newsroom interviews -- not reporters interviewing sources, but New York Times editors interviewing New York Times reporters and even other New York Times editors.

It's well shot and produced, and slickly edited with lower-thirds and appropriate B-roll. But there's a slightly awkward aura to it all.

First, the interviews take place standing up, and not sitting down, which would seem more natural and comfortable. Is this intended to give it a sense of urgency?

Second, one can't ignore the overriding question as to whether journalists talking amongst themselves is content that a news audience seeks or wants. Other major news organizations have experimented with similar behind-the-scenes transparency, inviting us to eavesdrop on editorial meetings, and to hear reporters offer on-camera "backgrounders" of important stories and issues. Rarely are these enticing.

What's remarkable is how the TimesCast, unlike most newspaper-generated video (including its own), clings more to the traditional TV news format of field correspondent conducting on-camera interviews. The big difference here, of course, is that it's the home field and the subjects are the home team. So it can veer dangerously close to seeming like an exercise in narcissism.

There is one critical difference between the TimesCast and similar forays into mid-day news videocasts at other media Websites. What we've previously seen has mostly been an attempt to capitalize on video in the most cynically inexpensive and least labor-intensive way possible -- they just stick a camera in the editorial meeting and let it run, and then stick a camera in their own reporters' faces and let them ramble, and then post the raw unedited mess in a well hidden corner of their Website. When no one watches, they complain that nobody cares about the process of gathering and reporting news.

Or we've seen newspaper video departments team with similarly beleagured local TV newscasts, and in an attempt to avoid a double drowning, produce well intentioned videocasts that are designed to serve double duty, on air and online. But ultimately they resemble scaled-down TV news, with 1:15 segments that contain snappy soundbites, not well developed themes and stories. Not necessarily a step backwards, but hardly a step forwards.

By contrast, the TimesCast seems more like a move in the right direction, targeted for a specific medium and audience. It's smart and articulate, professionally polished and well crafted. And genuinely illuminating.

But wait! Can this be? For the first time, the Times is enabling viewers to embed this video on their own blogs or websites. We've previously taken the Times to task for not making this feature available. Apparently they're making an exception for the TimesCast, or maybe it's a baby-step experiment that will eventually liberate the rest of their video arsenal for wider distribution, o frabjous day!

So ignore our meager descriptions and nitpicks, and partake of the seminal TimesCasts for yourself, below. We're eager to hear what you think about them. Are you likely to watch them daily? If so, in addition to, or in lieu of, reading homepage headlines? In terms of content or style, what would you like to see them do better or differently?

Ask Ann Derry About NYTimes Video. We Did!

Have a question about the NYTimes.com superb videojournalism? You can ask Ann Derry herself. She's the Times' editorial director of video and television, and is fielding reader/viewer questions this week, as part of the Website's ongoing "Ask the Times" feature. (Email your questions to askthetimes@nytimes.com .)

As longtime admirers of the Times' high-quality video stories (showcased on KobreGuide's "New York Times" channel), we asked three questions, hoping for even a single response. Derry generously responded to all three:

Q. 1. What lessons can other media organizations learn from The New York Times's video experiments and experience? Most staffs seems to be half-heartedly struggling with video stories that fall short on all accounts — technically, aesthetically, journalistically. How/why is The Times succeeding and forging ahead?

2. How well is The New York Times's admirable investment in videojournalism paying off in reader/viewer engagement ... and in ad revenue?

3. What trends do you foresee in videojournalism, at The New York Times and elsewhere?

A. We've been able to accomplish so much so quickly because we had a head start: The senior producers in the video department have, collectively, about 100 years of news and documentary television experience, some of which we acquired while producing television programming for The Times.

So when we started producing video for NYTimes.com, we were already working closely with Times reporters and editors. And we were determined to apply strong journalistic and technical standards (shooting, editing, lighting) to our video. We wanted to give viewers a high-quality video experience, whether they were watching our videos on NYTimes.com ­ or downloading them from iTunes or watching them on television.

How is our investment paying off? We don't share our numbers publicly, but, according to Will Gonzalez, our video product manager, increasing numbers of people are viewing our videos on and off our site. Video is still a burgeoning business for The Times, as it is for the rest of the industry. We are looking at creative ways beyond advertising to monetize our video — including syndication.

I'm most interested in increasing what I like to call "the language of video" throughout our Web site. We aspire to weave video more seamlessly into Times reporting, and hope that readers/viewers come to expect and to see video everywhere on NYTimes.com ­— whether that means short clips embedded in articles or blogs, video shot by a reporter with a still camera, video incorporated into an interactive graphic or multimedia presentation, user-generated video or even our newest form of investigative video.

Lots more great questions and insightful answers from Ann Derry about NYTimes.com videojournalism, so go read it for yourself. And stay tuned to KobreGuide's New York Times channel for more top-notch videojournalism.

Reeling Them In: Building an Audience for Videojournalism

Want to know how the top mainstream media organizations are using web video, and what their future plans are?

Then you won't want to miss this panel discussion(below, 1:11:20), sponsored by YouTube, and moderated by WashingtonPost.com's political blogger Chris Cillizza ("The Fix").



The topic: "Reeling Them In: Building an Audience for News Video." The panelists: Jim Brady, Executive Editor of WashingtonPost.com; Ann Derry, The New York Times' Editorial Director of Video and Television; Refet Kaplan, Managing Director, Fox News; Lila King, Director of CNN iReport; Jon Sawyer, Executive Director of the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

Online video has presented a new frontier in the future of news. It's easier than ever to use video to tell stories; even news organizations that traditionally published in text are adding substantial video capacity to their staffs. Traditional media organizations have started arming their reporters with video cameras, and today's journalists are expected not only to research and write, but to blog and shoot video for rich multimedia packages. Yet the market for video is so saturated - how do you rise above the chatter, for example, of the 13 hours of video that are uploaded to YouTube every minute? This panel discusses how news outlets are using video to enhance their content offerings and reach new markets.