As the video begins, no announcer welcomes you, no headline scrolls across the computer screen. There is no need for either. You know where you are from the logic of the images. The camera lingers on the anticipatory expressions on people’s faces at Barack Obama’s inauguration; it holds steady as endless streams of people slowly fill the National Mall. Natural sound builds the excitement. Parallels between Obama’s 2009 swearing-in and Martin
Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial are subtly drawn—in the words, for example, of a man who stands to hear Obama’s oath at the spot where King once stood.
It is a lyrical narrative, produced by a team of mainly self-taught video journalists who, at the time, worked for Washingtonpost.com. In a media-saturated world, the story is unique, an eight-minute journey that lives up to its promising title, In the Moment. Like all the best journalism, it brings you right there.
Online video news can do that so well, and so much better now with advances in technology: palm-size cameras, nimble editing tools, digital formats, broadband connections. We can create candid, cinematic gems that hold the promise of luring those who grew up with the Web—young people—into serious journalism.
Of course, the Web is exploding with video of all kinds. YouTube recently announced that twenty-four hours worth of video is being posted to its site every minute. Only a small portion of that could be called news, and the overwhelming majority of even that sliver of video is not quality, documentary-style essays, but bits of breaking news.
Because the Web is so fragmented—and because search tools for visual files are so primitive—intimate news narratives are nearly impossible to find unless you know the URL or something close to it. “The challenge is to try to get them in an environment that puts them in the best light,” says Bill Burke, global director of online video products at The Associated Press, which has won several awards for its video storytelling. “We haven’t found it.”
For this and several other reasons, the promise of a new frontier of great video journalism, so palpable as recently as 2007, is receding. My personal experience is rooted in twenty-five years of print journalism, but I recognize this retreat as the absolute wrong direction. Serious journalists should not give up on video. It’s far too soon for that.
Strong video journalism is caught in a vicious circle. Because it gets lost in the flood of other video, too few users find the high-quality, well-produced stories. So despite the higher rates publishers have been able to charge advertisers to place short video ads before news videos, total revenue for them remains disappointingly small. That, in turn, makes it tough for newsroom managers to justify investing in great video storytelling in the first place.
Meanwhile, search engines reward with higher rankings those content providers that update often and provide a robust stream of offerings. Time-pressed news staff members have difficulty keeping up with both production and quality demands: one or the other starts to slip. This leads to such practices as TV news broadcasters filling their sites with clips and outtakes, and shying away from unique visual stories tailored for the Web. Print news sites gin up regular video “shows” that draw loyal viewers and boost their numbers, but also drain resources from higher-level storytelling. The poor Web viewer swims in a sea of marginal content, convinced that online news video is a time-sink of spoofs, self-indulgent polemics, and shaky footage of car crashes.

Abs. Superb!
Drew, Leacock et al were massive pioneers, fundamental in shaping a visual medium and a methodology, as were Rouch, Marker et al in Europe. You could even look to the work of Eisenstein whom instigated cinema verite (kino). All had a passion, all searched for an aesthetic.
Videojournalism's Achille is in part its search for a home. Shooting a camera, making a news film was never quite as revolutionary as it was made to seem. Jessica Borthwicke in 1914 would further prove that when at 24 with a Newman camera and a few days training she left London to film the Crimean war.
What's dogged film all the while and thus attracted stern critique is the search for an aesthetic. History informs us these have arisen through a number of supervening moments.
But videojournalism's supervening time, at least as a creative aesthetic construct has often been junked in favour of a replication of a status quo inured by saving costs and multiskilling.
It's finding one now; small pockets.
If you'll pardon me. In 2005 when I was awarded a Batten Award, this was the precise question within videojournalism that taxed me then and still does today.
The judges commented on viewmagazine.tv (the site and video I produced) as:
“This interactive magazine foreshadows the future with its use of hip new story forms and highly video-centric Web tools.”
-2005 Batten Advisory Board Judges
That future then, is now upon us at present, but the aesthetic and philosophy has moved on. There's a fresh media ascendancy, albeit limited at the moment that resides in the collocation of photography and video, animation, and less a reliance on television and at times the classic video obs docs lingua franca.
Hence the bril work of Travis Fox, Angela Grant, Brian Storm et al. I've had the opportunity in many cases of talking to them personally or on the dog and bone (Gosh these air fares are killing me).
Your post is prescient as I have just returned from interviewing some of the UK's leading television/media figures about this,, such as Stuart Purvis who was Editor-in-Chief and then Chief Executive of ITN from 1995-2003.
One little unknown story, which I'm pursuing acknowledges the contribution of a UK cable outfit in 1994 solely dedicated to videojournalism called Channel One. I'll post what Stuart says on Youtube and my blog.
But Channel One 1994, which I was part of accepted in its early days (tutored by a young Michael Rosenblum) the need for a newish aesthetic.
What's more none of the videojournalists were constrained by a paradigm or semiotic of news production. We made programmes - a Zero or Z principle of media production. Nothing was wasted, it all unfurled together.
We were informed, at least I was, by a run of programmes on BBC e.g. Reportage and Def II. Stuff today we might take for granted, but led to great late night debates and films.
And today many of those former videojournalists work in the industry and their work has attracted huge acclaim e.g. Dimitri Doganis Raw TV .
The videojournalism ( that poor word) I see is one that is maturing but beyond its traditional stables, driven by, yet not wedded to exclusively a cinema aesthetic, a motion graphic derivative, a visual verite, a narratology which will do for it, what blogs did for news copy. A time when we'll video hyperlink pieces and drill further into aspects of design and video and how they work.
There's still work to be done, but articles like yours Jill become, or should become a camp fire to explore the contemporary, antecedents, and what ifs.
Videojourna
#1 Posted by David Dunkley Gyimah, CJR on Thu 23 Sep 2010 at 11:09 AM
If you folks aren't careful, you'll invent television.
#2 Posted by Stuart Watson, CJR on Thu 23 Sep 2010 at 04:26 PM
Good roundup, but how on earth did you miss KobreGuide to the Web's Best Videojournalism, which showcases nearly all the gems you've cited and hundreds more, all selected and annotated by pros, published by legendary SFSU Prof. Ken Kobre since 2008... It is consulted daily by leading media organizations, top practitioners, aspiring VJs and journalism students around the world... It's one-stop-shopping for all videojournalism enthusiasts who want to view the best the medium has to offer, and are stymied by the very problem you cite -- news Websites hide their stuff so well that nobody can find it amidst the rubble... Another point worth making: Local audiences for, say, the Detroit Free Press (freep.com) or the St. Petersburg Times (tampabay.com) are unlikely to view videos on out-of-town websites -- despite the fact that many have national and/or universal appeal... KobreGuide.com increases the visibility and audiences for those meritorious video stories. ... http://www.KobreGuide.com
#3 Posted by JERRY LAZAR, CJR on Thu 23 Sep 2010 at 05:13 PM
I would be interested to know where you would draw a line between video journalism and documentary film-making - topics? audience? distribution? challenges getting noticed? funding? The two would appear to be very similar.
#4 Posted by Michael Fox, CJR on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 12:21 AM
Great piece. I think the biggest factor related to time spent is the user's expectations prior to clicking on a video. Simply producing a 15-minute video isn't enough. You have to build an audience that appreciates long-form visual storytelling on your site by producing great work. If a video is sandwiched between a web gem and some breaking news, then why would any user expect to stay for an entire 15-minute piece?
I don't see how any organization can build an audience that will stay for longer stories without clearly separating the different forms of video on the site. On the Web, you don't know what you're going to get until you click. Anything that news organizations can do to alleviate that uncertainty on the web will be crucial to the success of in-depth, visual journalism.
#5 Posted by McKenna Ewen, CJR on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 11:21 AM
I think Vimeo (www.vimeo com) should yield better results than Google or YouTube for this type of content, since it's generally home to more professional film makers. I think another videojournalism website worth mentioning is Journeyman Pictures (www.journeyman.tv).
#6 Posted by Rodrigo Ordóñez, CJR on Fri 24 Sep 2010 at 11:51 PM