Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Effective Journalism?
Mark's question in class about video footage, and what qualifies as being an effective means of journalism, really stuck with me. When I was looking at news about the recent storms that hit my hometown in the The Courier Journal, I came across this video. A reporter for the paper took a home video of the storm. Does this count as journalism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think I would call it journalism. Just because someone has an official title of "reporter" does not mean that everything he or she produces is journalism. Had this storm done more than just be a storm (i.e., caused floods, lightning struck houses, etc.), then maybe. I do not feel that a video of a thunderstorm really gives much back to the community.
This, in my opinion, is definitely a subjective issue. Home video footage, when used as source material for a news piece or package, can be considered acceptable material for broadcast, web publishing, etc. only when a few certain conditions apply. First and foremost, as Rene mentioned, the story that the video showcases should first and foremost be newsworthy. Footage of an average, everyday thunderstorm really isn't all that groundbreaking. It's more like a visual weather report than anything else. Now, depending on the size and scale of the storm, you have a different matter to consider. But nowadays you have a lot of user-submitted, amateur videos of newsworthy events that are popping up daily on major networks like CNN (i.e. iReport). The person who shot the footage may not be considered a tried and true journalist, but their willingness to submit the footage, and the fact that they deemed it important enough to submit in the first place, does speak somewhat to the idea of being a respectable "citizen journalist." On the broadcasting side of things, I think it really boils down to the number of total sources you have available with which to tell a story. If a groundbreaking event occurs and the only footage a station has on hand is some choppy, shaky video shot from a cellphone, it becomes a matter of whether or not that footage shows more than would be possible to explain in words alone. I know I'm dragging this out way to long, but the definitions of "journalist" and "effective journalism" really vary on a case by case basis. Viewers at home always expect a certain standard of quality, but it really all depends on the stories being covered and what the reporters and producers have at their disposal (video, audio, photos, etc.) to help tell those stories.
How is this different from a TV reporter standing on the side of a highway when it's snowing? Or in a parking lot where something newsworthy happened several hours ago?
It is a very primitive form of journalism. It lacks context, it lacks a story, but it does document an event.
Post a Comment