Don't say Twitter or Facebook on French TV, radio

June 6, 2011 By 1 Comment

In just about every newscast it has become routine to hear anchors and reporters promote their Facebook and Twitter accounts.

It’s a way for these news organizations to extend their reach and build their brand across media.

Well, in France it’s no longer legal for broadcasters to promote their social media pages.

The Daily Mail quotes a spokeswoman for France’s television regulatory agency, Christine Kelly, saying preference shouldn’t be given to the two popular social media sites.

“Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition?” she asked, according to Mail Online.

“This would be a distortion of competition. If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s Box — other social networks will complain to us saying, ‘why not us?’”

Journalists will still be allowed to more generally promote their social media accounts, but not specific sites (insert wink from anchor here).

If the name of a social media service is integral to telling a news story then broadcasters can utter the banded Facebook or Twitter.

The removal of promoting these sites is an interpretation of a 1992 law that sought to limit thinly veiled advertising (the link is in French, so if you’re like me it’s not going to help much. However, if you do read French please let us know your interpretation).

Of course, this isn’t product placement. Using social media is an attempt by these journalists to connect to their audiences and spread news and information.

Maybe I’m just an ethnocentric American who thinks the viewers and listeners can decide if their trusted news source promoting Twitter or Facebook is really some evil plot to undermine competition or just a way to reach people where they are and in a way convenient for them.

Filed Under: Frontpage Tagged With: , ,

The paywall debate: The challenge of charging

March 17, 2011 By 3 Comments

The publisher of The New York Times, in a letter to readers, detailed the specifics of their latest paywall attempt Thursday.

The two main points:
1. Users can view up to 20 stories (including video, slideshows and other multimedia content) a month.
2. Stories you are linked to from blogs, social networking sites and the like will not count against the 20 story limit.

The Times is testing this approach on Canadian users now and it will expand to U.S. and the rest of global readers March 28.

“It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times,” wrote Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., “one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform.”

From a business standpoint he may be right. Newspapers’ current model isn’t working and they have to pay for all that great journalism.

Now for the BUT.

The Times attempted something similar to this and failed with TimesSelect, returning columnist content to free in 2007 after two years of behind a paywall.

This is what then-Times executive Vivian Schiller (we won’t get into what’s happened to her since) was quoted by Reuters as saying of the decision to end TimesSelect: “We now believe by opening up all our content and unleashing what will be millions and millions of new documents, combined with phenomenal growth, that that will create a revenue stream that will more than exceed the subscription revenue.”

So the logic then was to increase potential ad revenue by increasing the potential audience. Now it’s to do the opposite. It’s been pretty well established that putting up a paywall decreases views and thus decreases advertising revenue.

Then there is the other issue that so often gets overlooked: The NYTimes.com is hardly the only source for news. Many other sites, particularly those run by television networks have no incentive to charge for content. They never have. Savvy news consumers can simply go to cbsnews.com or ABCNews.com or a myriad of other sites to get essentially the same news.

Content is so widely available that, except for very specific stories, users don’t need The New York Times as much as The New York Times needs the audience for advertising. But legacy media, particularly media organizations with a proud history, have a hard time recognizing that.

That is a long way around to make my connection to television news and the challenge of paywalls.

For all of the other newspapers in cities across the country that have three, four or five television stations or more producing news and running their own websites, the news of the day is readily available for free. All a paywall will do is push people to other sources. No one likes to pay for something they can get for free someplace else.

Back to the Times, the decision to allow all users to read stories they are linked to makes their entire paywall moot, anyways.

If I really want to read a particular Times story and don’t want to pay, all I’d have to do is google the headline and find it linked from somewhere else and get it that way. That would just take a few seconds and not cost $15-$35 a month like the Times.

Filed Under: Frontpage Tagged With: ,

Video journalism in the palm of your hand: Making the most out of Flip and cell phone video

November 23, 2010 By 3 Comments

If you have a cell phone – and I highly doubt you are reading this if you don’t – you can probably shoot video with it and, if you’re into gadgets or have young children, you may have a Flip Video camera.

This is good for journalism.

More of us, which means more journalists and more of our audience, are able to shoot video almost anytime and anywhere.

These small devices allow us to capture news as it happens, allows novices to get acquainted with shooting basic video and allows citizens to contribute, too.

The quality of the video is improving, making it more acceptable for use in journalism.

When I began using a Samsung Blackjack more than three years ago at WFAA-TV in Dallas we were unsure if the video quality was good enough for a major broadcast station, even though we were planning to use the video only in breaking news situations.

We were pleasantly surprised.

The quality was good enough for on-air in the country’s fifth largest media market and for our website when getting video on fast mattered much more than the quality. We had success with this during severe weather, a gas tank explosion, elections and a terrorism trial. We won two Advanced Media Emmy Awards for our breaking news coverage in the process.

It was a novelty back then (not quite the old days, but 2007 does seem like a distant memory sometimes).

The point of the back-story is that I was recently asked to do a workshop on using Flip Video cameras for the Texas Center for Community Journalism. Using a cell phone with a good video camera works essentially the same.

Here are my top tips for getting the most out of your Flip:

  • Get close for interviews. There is only the attached microphone and no connections for a hand held or clip on microphone. If we can’t hear what the person said it doesn’t matter what they said.
  • Steady the camera. We’re not trying to make folks seasick. Use two hands or put the camera on the ground or on a table, etc.
  • Move around. Variety is the key to good video storytelling. You need this when you edit.
  • But don’t zoom. Video will get very shaky the more you zoom! Get physically close.
  • Take us where we can’t go with larger cameras.

    You probably have free video editing software on your computer (iMovie on a Mac and Movie Maker for Windows). Here are tips for when you go to edit:

  • You are telling a story visually. Have a beginning, middle and end.
  • Put clips in logical flow/sequences. You can’t magically get from one place to another.
  • Match the video to what you/your subjects are saying.
  • Shots shouldn’t be too short or too long. About 4 seconds is good.
  • Fine tune audio.
  • You can do your narration right into the editing program (if it’s quiet).
  • Use transitions sparingly.

    Here is what your Flip and phone are good for:

  • Quick, informal interviews.
  • Raw video.
  • Basic feature stories.
  • Reporter debriefs.
  • Getting something done fast.
  • Adding diversity of content to your website.
  • Experimenting.

    Now get going. It’s easy… and fun.

    • Filed Under: Frontpage
    « Older Posts
    Newer Posts »