YouTube, meanwhile, hired interns this past summer to curate the best breaking-news videos from around the world, creating a feed of top stories uploaded by citizen journalists and learning more about how people find and share what they believe are important videos. “It’s an experiment to understand this ecosystem better and to make it more useful to media,” says Steve Grove, YouTube’s head of news and politics. Grove also wants to gather information to help determine what search algorithms might work best to discover news video.
A few sites aren’t waiting for search to improve, but are using their own people to find and promote what they believe to be worthy videos. For example SlateV, a video magazine for those who favor Slate’s sensibilities, both produces its own videos—an average of five a week—and curates newsworthy videos produced by others, highlighting the best under the headline, “Did You See This?”
SlateV’s videos aren’t full-blown visual essays. Often they are clever takeoffs on the news. And in the curated part of its site, SlateV highlights buzz-worthy videos from all over, most of which aren’t journalism. In the curated news and politics section, users can find parodies and political ads alongside opinion and advocacy videos. SlateV’s editor, Andy Bowers, a long-time correspondent for NPR before joining Slate in 2003, said he expects more news-related videos to be produced by organizations other than the media. The question he asks himself is less “What organizations are producing this?” he says, and more “Is this responsible or is this propaganda?” He adds: “I think more and more you’ll see these organizations produce what we call journalism.”
Colin Mulvany, a photographer and video journalist for The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington, is carrying the flag for superior video storytelling. Mulvany said he trained fourteen people in his newsroom to shoot video but nine of them were subsequently laid off. Now he and a handful of others attempt to produce well-crafted video features as well as news, in collaboration with print reporters. And because there is rarely anyone in newsroom management with enough expertise to critique the work of video journalists, Mulvany started a site called Findingtheframe.com to fill the void. It’s a kind of self-help organization that seeks to improve the quality of online video features. Findingtheframe.com invites news-video journalists to submit their stories for critiques by a panel of experts.
“This is going to be the future of the Internet. Video is the language online,” Mulvany says. “But video journalism is still a goat trail.”
Brian Storm formed his own multimedia production company, MediaStorm, in 2005 to prove that a business could be built around online cinematic narratives. He’s succeeding.
Storm says he takes a “disciplined” approach to his work and pursues topics that he personally cares about, with what he calls “ass-kicking storytelling.” Ultimately, he says, the video that will succeed online is either “cats spinning on a fan or the greatest story done on Darfur. No one’s gonna tweet what’s in the middle.”
In the past five years, his company has produced twenty-seven online documentaries and dozens of other projects for a variety of clients. He won’t reveal traffic, but points to a twenty-one-minute video story—following an illegal immigrant from Cameroon—that he said had a 65 percent completion rate, meaning the viewer stayed with the story for its entire length. Average time on his site was eleven and a half minutes earlier this year, before a redesign that he believes will increase the figure. At press time, MediaStorm has some 5,900 Twitter followers and 8,000 Facebook fans, 54 percent of whom are between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four. “Our entire careers as journalists they told us that eighteen- to thirty-four-year-olds don’t care,” he says.

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