Cover the Planet

By David Poulson

It seems to me that two contrary attitudes sabotage the use of video on the web.

One comes from print reporters reluctant to stretch themselves. They may be spooked by the technology or baffled by a foreign story-telling technique. Either way they’re paralyzed. They don’t try, or they don’t try very hard.

Their opposites are the documentary filmmaker wannabees. Video is a tremendously complicated endeavor for them.  Breaking news? Forget it. These folks need days to edit something that meets high expectations.

It may look nice. But the effort often fails to justify the benefit.

There is a happy medium that cures paralysis while putting this storytelling tool to work fast. Check out the video toward the end of this story.

It’s a scant 26-seconds long. There’s no sound. It was taken with a point and shoot camera. A few sentences in text provide context. It doesn’t divert the reader - it augments the story.

This is a good cure for video paralysis. And while hardly a documentary, the effort to benefit ratio is extremely favorable.

It’s effective. You know how I know?

I itch every time I watch it.

By David Poulson

Two students here at the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism got a resume-builder of sorts this week when their work appeared in Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog.

Revkin, a reporter for the New York Times, reported that former Vice President Al Gore removed a misleading slide from his climate change road show. He linked his post to a video of Gore’s presentation – complete with the offending slide.

That video was taken by MSU EJ students Andy Balaskovitz and Andy McGlashen last week at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago. They posted it, helpfully divided into several small clips, to YouTube in preparation for publication in an MSU blog they created to cover the conference.
So how did Revkin end up with it?
“I went to YouTube because I couldn’t get my Macbook to play the video files at the aaas.org site,” Revkin wrote in an e-mail. “And, better yet, the short clip made it easier for viewers to home in on the suspect comment!”
For driving traffic, you can’t beat the New York Times. Revkin’s mention boosted the circulation of the students’ efforts significantly. Within 24 hours the video received more than 2,200 views.
The take-home message here isn’t that journalists should post to YouTube on the off-chance they’ll show up in a New York Times blog.  Instead, think of all that stuff on YouTube that might help illustrate your own story.
Do a quick search of the site before you hit the send button.  Or check it out before you start writing – what you find may just prompt a great story angle.

By David Poulson

You’ve got to hand it to the University of Montana’s schools of journalism and of law. They’ve joined in a project that pushes the bounds of traditional courtroom coverage and of new media.

The subject is the hottest environmental trial going. Five W.R. Grace officials face charges that they hid studies indicating the hazards faced by workers mining vermiculite in Libby, Mont. The company denies any wrongdoing.

It’s a typical messy environmental court action. After four years of legal maneuvering the case has finally come to trial. It will be interesting to see how the law students and the journalism students explain the legal issues to the public. Is it a clash of cultures or a collaboration from which we’ll all benefit?

But frankly, I’m much more interested in the new media elements they’re bringing to the coverage, particularly the use of Twitter as a means to cover courtroom action in real time. I’ll write more about that later; I want to see how that coverage progresses. But already they’ve helped set the #GraceCase Twtter hash tag, a role that I’ve argued is something where news organizations can take the lead.

And of course the students aren’t alone.

The Missoulian has a tremendous trove of backgrounders, links to news stories, videos, timelines and other elements. If you’re a nut for environmental litigation, here’s a place for not only ongoing coverage but instant background. It’s almost as if they’ve created the resources from which some novelist will someday write a bestseller.

And the journalists are not alone.

Grace itself has built an online presence to state its case. It even has its own timeline. For all I know, the plaintiffs have something similar. If you’re aware of it, send me a link. And if they don’t, they should.

But that is precisely why journalists need to so aggressively insert themselves into stories like these. There’s a lot of value in that “wisdom of the crowd” thing. But a blog battle here won’t serve the community.

A thorough, engaging and journalistically valid report will. Let’s hope we see one.

By David Poulson

Jeff Kart has this nice piece in the Bay City (Mich.) Times today on the future of a proposed coal-fired power plant in the heart of his readership.

Consumers Power Co. makes the case that this plant is unusually well-suited for carbon capture and sequestration technology. The region already has underground cavities that might be used to store captured carbon.

Kart does a good job of explaining the issue. But he helps the reader by embedding into the online version of the story this U.S. Department of Energy YouTube video that describes the technology and the challenges:

Should you rely on government video to help you explain your story?

Of course. You wouldn’t hesitate to interview a government official for a similar explanation. Take advantage of all the resources you can - and as efficiently as you can.

A commitment to multi-media reporting doesn’t mean you have to do it all yourself. Government, non-profit agencies and other organizations have resources that can engage readers. They may not be perfect - in this case I’d argue the carbon video is much too long.

But seek out those sources. Nowadays that really is part of your job as a journalist. Besides, you save yourself a pile of production work if you can find something to illustrate your story that someone else has done.

Just be transparent about where you got the video - like you’d do with any information. And if the presentation is biased, point that out. Or at least report alternative valid viewpoints. It’s still journalism.