MediaStorm’s business is divided into four parts. The first is his team’s own, independent journalism projects. The second is co-productions with other journalism organizations, including the Los Angeles Times and MSNBC. MediaStorm and the partner sites co-produce the story, each posts it on its own site, and then they share the advertising revenue. The third is straight client work, which is the real moneymaker. For repeat clients like the Asia Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Starbucks, its one corporate client, MediaStorm produces multimedia projects with the same high-quality storytelling as its journalism. “We love to work with NGOs. We love having a mission and resources,” Storm says. “They pay five times what The New York Times would pay for the same content.”
The fourth leg of his business is training others to shoot and edit high-impact multimedia and run a business his way. The workshop films also get showcased on his site. One notable piece is Take Care, an eight-minute story of a twenty-two-year-old woman in Staten Island and her complex family life.
Storm won’t disclose revenue, but profits pay for him and his staff—and their journalism projects. He took a year to produce Intended Consequences, a multimedia story on rapes during the Rwandan genocide. It was the first Web story to win an Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia University award, earlier this year. The story also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the victims of Rwandan rapes. “I remember sitting in an office in 1995 and talking about Rwanda while my fifty-year-old bosses said no one would care about that story,” Storm says. “ ‘Audiences are apathetic to those issues and won’t watch it,’ they said. Well, our audience is fired up. They are telling stories every day. They have tools to promote them, on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs. The people who are apathetic are in newsrooms, where they’ve gone through so many layoffs. The audience is hungry for great stories.
“I’m tired of people saying we’re the future. We’re the present,” Storm says. “I have real bills to pay and I make the money to do it.”
There are other places on the Web that experiment with documentary-style storytelling. Honkytonk.fr is one that Duy Linh Tu, a multimedia expert and coordinator of the digital media program at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, likes to keep an eye on. The French multimedia production house posts video stories that include many clickable boxes, giving the viewer options for which parts of the story to pursue. Its presentation is not unlike those children’s books that tell you to skip to page 53 if Sharon opens the door, or to flip to page 11 if she keeps it closed. The topics vary, from Euro rock-and-roll to oil industry practices in the Amazon. “It’s really innovative, but also really tedious,” Duy says. “It forces me to click around, so I don’t get a narrative. When I watch video, I expect you to tell me a story.”
Travis Fox, the Emmy Award-winning video producer and pioneer of online multimedia journalism, agrees. “Telling stories online is not as different as people think,” he says. “There’s a debate at the beginning of every Web production about how interactive to make it. I believe you just need to tell a good story and keep it simple.”
I had the privilege of watching Fox do just that when we traveled together as Washington Post correspondents in China’s Sichuan province, after the massive earthquake in 2008 that killed nearly 90,000 people. I wrote my own piece from the top of a rubble pile a couple of days before Travis arrived, but it is his video story from the devastated town of Beichuan that still haunts me. Fox’s position was eliminated at the Post and he’s on his own now, doing work for PBS’s Frontline.

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