Back To Life

That’s life

In 1936, Time Magazine publisher Henry R. Luce bought the rights to the name LIFE and founded a magazine that would come to dominate print journalism for nearly forty years.

Luce turned LIFE into the world’s first and best photojournalism magazine. Compelling stories told predominantly by pictures. To be a photographer for LIFE was to have died and gone to photo heaven. Luce saw in the 1930s, the emerging power of the new medium of photojournalism, driven by the new technology of small Leica cameras married to Agfa’s invention of plastic roll 35mm film. Suddenly, the possibility existed to create a whole new way of telling stories.

Some of LIFE’s photographers went on to become the best photojournalists of the age. People like W. Eugene Smith, who invented the concept of the photo essay, Margaret Bourke White and Robert Capa essentially invented the photojournalism that we know today – intimate, real, compelling and powerful.

Today, we are faced with another combination of new technologies with the power to once again reinvent the medium. Small, hand held video cameras and the web are the tools not of a cheaper kind of television news, but rather the entre to an entirely new kind of journalism – driven largely by pictures and sound, carried on the web.

What will it look like?

We are still figuring this out. But I very strongly believe that what Leicas and 35mm film did for photojournalism, small cameras and the web can do for videojournalism. This is, create a new storytelling grammar that is also intimate, powerful, compelling and cheap to make. The vision of one person, just as Capa’s work was the vision of one person; just as Margaret Bourke White’s work was the vision of one person. A melding of journalism and art.

We can do this.

And we are beginning see the beginnings of it, so to speak.

Here is a piece by John Munson, a former still photographer from the Star Ledger who has created a piece that could just as easily, 50 years ago, been a powerful story for LIFE. That power remains, though now in video.

The Chosen

This just in…..

Television did not appear as a gift from God.

The Lord did not appear before Sarnoff, Paley and Goldensohn in the form of a burning bush and select them to carry His word forth.

No one descended from Sinai with tablets inscribed with the instructions on what television was to be

-Thou shalt have an anchor, preferrably white, male and boring

-Thou shalt have reporters in the fields…

-Thou shalt do sports and weather…

This did not happen. But we act as though it did.

At its invention, television was so complicated, so expensive and so difficult to push through the ether into people’s homes, that truly, it seemed that God Almightly had indeed elected NBC, CBS and ABC to be the deliverers of ‘truth’ to the masses, and hence, their way was the only Way.

This has been going on for so long (since the Creation – the creation of television, that is) that it seems that the way it looks and who gets to make it are indeed indellibly cast in stone.

If you don’t believe it, just turn on your TV set and watch the news. Network or local, cable or broadcast, it does not matter. They all look exactly the same. An anchor at a desk with a box over their shoulder. The pieces all look the same – police tape, stand up, wide shot, talking head, droning narration. Mix em up and reassemble them. All the same. Take a piece from NBC and stick it on CBS. Who could tell?

For nearly 70 years it has been the same boring crap, day after day, year after year with only the most marginal of changes.

And why? Because there was no one else who could or would do this. It was just too expensive to get into the business.

Now, suddenly, all this is changing.

As my old friend Mike Sechrist said when he saw video online, ‘it’s over’. What he meant was that the nice technological stranglehold that broadcasters and cable had was over. And it was… and it is. Now, anyone can make TV.

But who can make TV news? For that, you would need an army of journalists and a group both committed to gathering and reporting the news and passionate about it. You don’t find them in the college dorm room. And you probably don’t find them at your local TV news station – not an army, that’s for sure.

You DO find them at your local newspaper.

And now they can do video. The cameras are cheap, the edits simple. And now they can put their video into every home in the world. For nothing.

As Mike Sechrist would say, ‘it’s over’. At least it’s over for broadcasters. But it’s just the beginning for newspapers who take up the challenge. There’s a rich market out there to be had and the competition is lazy and fat and old and tired and stuck in their ways.

What does video news look like?

No one knows.

But we’re gonna find out.

We’re gonna find out because newspapers like the Star Ledger and others are going to try and try and try again as they fine tune it and really invent it on the fly.

It’s an exciting time for news.

For those who have the courage to take up the challenge and try new things.

For those who suddenly find their ox is being gored… well, they’re going to be unhappy. annoyed. angry. and threatened. (Terry Heaton has a good take on this today).They will throw everything they can at the interlopers. “Get off my territory. Go back where you belong!”

It won’t do them any good.

They already violated the second Commandment – Thou Shalt Make No Graven Images. In light of this, they’re all fired up to violate the seventh ‘Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife’ (or in this case, his advertisers).

How The Mighty Have Fallen

Toy who da?

Yesterday, The Telegraph reported that the Ford Motor Company is declaring losses of $8.7 billion for the quarter.

$8.7 billion

On the same day, Toyota passed GM as the number one auto maker in the world.

How the mighty have fallen.

Ironically, last week, while Detroit was headed toward Lagosland, we had a number of meetings with some major broadcasters on the east coast.

Why, they asked, if this VJ thing is such a good idea, don’t the networks do it?

Well, it’s a valid question.

“We can accept that The BBC has done this. And German TV. And Dutch TV. And Japanese TV….. But why haven’t the American networks really embraced this.

One might ask the same about small cars or hybrids and the US automakers.

Once at the top of the heap, you often find that old established companies are often the last to take a risk They get fat. They get lazy. They lose their edge.

This year is the 100th anniversary of the Model T.

In those days, Ford was willing to take a risk. Henry Ford was the Steve Jobs of another era. Automobiles were the web. Risk was the name of the game. And Ford’s success was that he made a product that was cheap, simple, fast and easy to use.

With success came complacency. Just like the networks.

Why don’t the three networks adapt the VJ system?

Why didn’t Ford and GM and Chrysler adapt hybrids and electric cars?

If you’re looking for the future and the cutting edge in the automobile business, look to Europe or Asia.

If you’re looking for the future and the cutting edge in the television business…. guess what? Same answer.

It Isn’t News To Me

Francisco  is one of my favorite VJs.

Uniquely talented as shooter, editor, writer and producer, he almost defines the term.

I met him entirely by accident. I was producing the first season of 5Takes and we have about a week to find and assemble the team. I took an ad on Craigslist looking for people who could shoot and cut and started interviewing them in my apartment, and this guy walks in with a reel that could just blow you away. I hired him on the spot. He went on to shoot all four seasons, including EPing the last one, as well as shooting and editing at the same time. (That’s how we work, the EP also shoots and edits. What is the point in being there if you aren’t going to do something productive?)

He never wanted to go into news. Instead, he wanted to make movies. But on his own.

Last year he was a runner-up in Spielberg’s TV show Back Lot. Their loss, IMHO.

Now, he’s made another film (I think its his third).

Here’s the trailer. Like I said, It isn’t news…… but it sure is interesting what one person can do with a small camera and a laptop if they’ve got a vision… whatever that vision is….

Ledger Live – Starts Monday

Beyond empowering the photogs and reporters at The Star Ledger with video cameras so that they can embed their videos on the website, we are also going to do a daily ‘live from the newsroom’ report.

The newsroom seems the logical place to report from.

The web seems the logical place to do it.

Video seems the logical medium.

This is not a ’show’ with hair and teeth anchors.

These are real Jersey reporters doing real reporting.

Take a sneak preview behind the scenes:

Putting the VJs and ‘news’ issue to rest

In the beginning it was VJs can’t produce quality.

Now that is no longer an issue.

Now it is OK. VJs are good for features, but when it comes to ‘real news’, (whatever that means) you still need crews.

Ummm. No.

Here’s a ‘news’ story, done in video, by the Newark Star Ledger.

End of discussion.

Oh, and by the way, check out Chuck Fadely’s new Newspapervideo site:

http://newspapervideo.ning.com/

It Hits The Fan

The New York Times today reported that their second-quarter profits fell 82 per cent to $21m, or 15 cents per share, compared with the same period a year ago.

82 percent.

The paper also suffered a 16.4% decline in ad revenues for just one month.

It’s pretty astonishing.

The paper responded by raising the price of the paper from $1.25 to $1.50.

Probably will not help.

And of course, the Times is not alone.  Gannett reported a 36% decline for the same period.

The only bright spot for The Times was About.com, which they own.  Ad revenues up 15.8%.

What we are looking at is the first wave of the impact of the web.

There is more to come.

The web carried text before it carried video. By about a decade. And when sites like Craigslist appeared, they eviscerated what had been a mainstay of newspaper income since newspapers started – classifieds.

Now newspapers have two choices: they can reinvent themselves or they can go out of business. Reinvention looks a lot better.  Because the function that newspapers do – going out into the community, gathering stories and publishing them, is a worthwhile function.  The problem with newspapers is the paper part. Fully 85% of the cost of a newspaper is the physicality of the paper: the ink, the paper, the presses, the trucks to deliver them.  The web does all this for free. So papers are running to the web.

And as the web goes to video, that is where papers want to be if they’re going to be competitive.

Which puts them in head to head competition with another group that is already doing video news from the community.

Same stories.

Same town.

Same advertisers.

There is only room here for one of these two competitors to survive.

Which one will it be?

My guess: the one that is fastest, leanest, covers the most stories (as this is the web, there is no ’show’ any more, no half hour newshole. The news hole is a black hole. It never ends.

Where will the viewers (and advertisers) go?

To the one that offers the most interesting and compelling stuff.

Which will it be?

We’ll see……

How will they do it? How will they ‘feed the beast’ and its limitless appetite?

On this I have a pretty good answer.

Extra! Read all about it..

Newspapers are pretty easy to understand.

At least, the way they gather the news.

If you have ever worked at a newspaper you understand immediately how it works.

“Here’s the pencil. There’s the door. See you at 6.”

It’s fast, cheap and efficient.

When we moved the Star Ledger to video, we made sure to take that culture of fast, cheap and efficient with us.

Newspaper reporters don’t spend a lot of time waiting around for the crew. They are already at the story. But instead of taking a pencil, they’re taking a small video camera. (In this case, a Sony A1U). And here’s what they’re bringing back (at least at the Star Ledger).

The News From China

Time to start the coverage…..

The summer deluge of coverage of the Beijing Olympics is scheduled to start soon, and the networks are poised to spend tens of millions, if not more, on getting the China story into our homes. NBC, of course, has spent $3.5 billion just for the rights, but that, of course, is only the beginning. For more than year, the major networks have been preparing for a China-fest.

I was in Beijing last Christmas, and Tienanmen Square was dominated by a giant ‘countdown’ clock, ticking off the months. days, hours, minutes and seconds to the start of the event. And now, here we are… almost.

Yesterday, I got an email from Jocelyn Ford, a freelance public radio correspondent in China. (see correction in comments NPR v. APR v. PRI)

She wasthe bureau chief for American Public Media’s “Marketplace” bureau in Beijing, and before that, was Marketplace bureau chief in Tokyo. Fluent in both Mandarin and Japanese, she has covered Asia for more than 20 years.

A few months ago, Ford bought herself a small video camera and FCP. She had never, by her own admission, done video before, but she was intrigued. So she started reporting, for no one in particular, in video.

Now, every good radio journalist carries their own tape recorder and edits their own stuff. This goes without saying. And Public Radio reporters are among the best in the world. So I was curious as to what would happen when a great DELNPR radio reporter picked up a camera and started using it to report.

Ford gets great access. Working alone, she is able to uncover the kinds of stories that a massive network crew simply can’t get to. And of course, the cost of her coverage is… well, generally a bus ticket – or sometimes she rides her bicycle. Let’s compare that to what the networks spend for their coverage, shall we?

The most interesting part, of course, is the kind of stories she is able to get access to.

There has been a great deal of discussion in the printed press lately about television’s reluctance to show anything ‘amiss’ in China. They have a kind of unwritten agreement with the Chinese government that the skies will be blue every day.

Ted Koppel, who has just completed a documentary for Discovery on China was recently on TODAY talking about massive repression in China. When Matt Lauer commented that NBC would soon be bringing the Olympics to American homes (never miss a chance to pimp the net), Koppel commented that was quite sure it would be wall-to-wall positive coverage. Lauer was not amused and a look of annoyance crossed his face before he moved on to ‘other stuff’.

Reporters like Jocelyn Ford have no such problems, and as such, despite the fact that their cost of coverage is next to nothing, are likely to give a far better and far more accurate picture of life in China today. That is, if anyone cares to pick up her stuff.

She is making it available as a video stringer.

Here, I think, is a unique opportunity for both television stations and newspapers.

Take it.

]

The Morning After

Until you learned to read and write, this thing was utterly worthless….

In the past two weeks, we have trained 80 people as new videojournalists, plus the folks at McGraw Hill and the folks at the Star Ledger we worked with during these 14 days, and we’re at a grand total around 150, give or take a few.

That’s not a lot.

Not when you consider the magnitude of what we are trying to accomplish.

This is not about teaching people to make video.

This is a revolution in literacy.

Video Literacy.

We are, today, a society that is defined by video. It is, for better or for worse, the Lingua Franca of our culture. The average American spends 4.5 hours a day watching videos, either on TV or online. That number is primed to get much bigger as video migrates to the web. ‘

Video is the way that we, increasingly, communicate stories, news, information and even ideas to one another. It is powerful because it often transcends barriers of language and of culture. It is universal. It is powerful. It drives everything from politics to religion, and much in between.

Yet the vast majority of the population (on the order of 99.99 percent) is and remains largely video illiterate. That is, while they can watch video, they cannot create it. Thus they are cut off from participating in creating the very elements of our public discourse, as well as our entertainment. They are, in effect, second class citizens.

What is worse, is that we are all the poorer as a culture when we place this incredibly powerful medium in the hands of a select (or self-selected) few.

It is a crazy and terribly destructive thing to do.

So no, we are not teaching people a skill. We are teaching them to participate in the formation of our culture, instead of being simply passive observers.

The morning after the printing press was invented in 1452, there was almost no one in Europe who was literate. Literacy was then the purview of a tiny and elite fraction of the population. The great and vast majority of the world was incapable of reading and writing.

So while the printing press was a wonderful machine for democratizing learning and ideas, it had to go hand and hand with a rather rapid process of teaching people to read and write, and empowering them with the idea… the idea… that they could do this. That it was, in fact, both their right and their responsibility.

This transformation took several hundred years, and not an insignificant amount of blood was shed in its defense.

Today, we live in a world in which print literacy – the ability to read and write, is viewed as a fundamental unifying principle of our culture. We teach people to write in school, not in the hopes that they might one day earn a living as writers, but rather so that they might fully contribute to culture as a whole.

Now, as we move rather rapidly from a print based to culture to a video based culture, it is equally important that we teach people how to communicate their ideas in video. Not so that they might one day earn a living as cameramen (though they might), but rather so that they might craft their ideas in the medium in which we are all increasingly communicating.