Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 20 2012

15:00

It’s not TV, it’s Reuters TV: Rethinking a news channel for online audiences

“We are deliberately not doing television on the web.”

As strategies go, that sounds like a solid start for Reuters TV, which launched this week as a YouTube channel and a new destination on Reuters.com. But what Barclay Palmer, Reuters global executive producer, was getting at is that, while sharing some commonalities with cable and network news, Reuters TV won’t just be CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News recreated for YouTube.

That’s because Reuters TV is an experiment in just what exactly online video news could become. It’s territory still largely uncharted, with the bulk of online news video coming from network and cable news, comprised of show segments and individual reports sliced up in easily digestible bits. (And online news video is, of course, just a tiny fraction of all web video.) For networks, that has meant carrying over much of the classic TV form — shot selection, editing, story length, set design — to the web, whether or not it matches up with the desires of online audiences.

That’s likely one of the reasons YouTube, which is branching out into original programming through partnerships, wanted a friend like Reuters. YouTube offers reach, Reuters offers the global news-gathering operation: Reuters + YouTube = the potential for a next generation news network. When I talked with Palmer, whose TV experience includes The NewsHour on PBS, Anderson Cooper 360, and others, he said Reuters has a chance to create a whole new experience for news video online.

“Reuters has this great tradition of providing smart content to news outlets, but it hadn’t really been in this business,” he said. “There’s a great opportunity to bring Reuters into online programming.”

What they plan to offer on the new channel is a mix of news and analysis on politics, finance, technology and other news from Reuters personalities like Chrystia Freeland, Felix Salmon, and Anthony De Rosa. Along with more interview-driven fare, they’ll also produce shows based around the U.S. presidential election, investigative reporting, and video from journalists in the field. It’s TV-esque — up to a point. There will be people chatting mingled with rich visuals, but the production style will be more casual, with less of a network polish and more of the energy of an upstart, Palmer said.

The advantage for Reuters is that there are few hard and fast rules for what works in original online video when it comes to news. “I think that in television, people are used to an architecture of the way programming works that gives a sense of familiarity and predictability that is comforting,” he said. None of that exists online, and that’s a good thing to Palmer. Take length: There’s a widespread belief that online video must be short in order to keep viewers attention — but Hulu and Netflix have proven people will happily watch something longer than two minutes on the web (yes, it’s entertainment content, but still). Reuters TV shows will be tailored both in shorter clips and in full programs to give viewers options and to make the content more sharable. On the production side, Palmer said, that’s a plus. “The advantage of online programming is you’re not held to 60 minutes or 48 minutes of programming,” he said. “You can end wherever it feels right to end.”

One way TV and online mirror each other is in the emphasis on personalities. Viewers want to feel like they can make a connection and be in contact with journalists, Palmer said, which is one reason YouTube is a useful platform for a news channel. It helps that a chunk of Reuters TV’s talent already have healthy Twitter/Facebook/Tumblr followings. “You need authentic people who are compelling,” he said. “You don’t need a $300 hairdo or a voice you think could be Shakespearian. People have to connect with viewers in a genuine way.”

Reuters has been spending a lot of money in recent years beefing up their news division, and investing money in launching an online TV channel — even one using existing talent — isn’t cheap. Think of it as buying pre-distressed jeans at the Gap: They’re spending money, but they don’t want to look like it. In Reuters’ case, that’s because they want to fit the aesthetics of web video, a look that’s a little rougher around the edges but one that’s inviting to audiences.

Nielsen is reporting that more people are watching video across multiple platforms, from their TVs to laptops, tablets and phones. At the same time, TV manufacturers are increasing the production of Internet-capable sets, and companies like Apple and Google are developing TV offerings not dependent on traditional networks. Meanwhile, Netflix and Hulu are focused on developing original scripted shows (or bringing back old ones — come on!).

Media companies are looking at this and responding, with the New York Times TimesCast series, the Wall Street Journal’s WSJ Live, and more. This past week, rumors perked up about the possibility of a Huffington Post streaming news channel. Reuters and the rest of these organizations are chasing the dream: A new market for online news video, bringing in new advertising and reach new audiences, but built in part on the same news-gathering staff already in place. “There is an increased offering of video online from news outlets and we can see a slow, but massive movement of people taking in video news online,” Palmer said.

One question hanging over the collaboration between YouTube and Reuters, is how well YouTube — normally a diversionary network of memes, old music videos, and clips from 1980s TV shows — can work as a news portal. Will it be able to build a persistent audience for news — not just fly-by users who pass through searching for specific clips (like, say, when I’m trying to remember what was the theme from Harcastle & McCormick)? Or will there at least be enough fly-bys to matter? (At posting, the 10 most recent Reuters TV clips on YouTube had a total of 1,265 views. The clip above, from an interview with Russian billionaire/New Jersey Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov, had 7.) Will people deliberately go to YouTube for news? Again, here is where Palmer sees the problem of distinction: If the audience has already changed the way it consumes video, either through delayed watching on DVRs and Tivo, or on-demand video through cable or the Internet, there’s no real measure yet of how a project like this will succeed. If there’s a seismic change coming in video, and Palmer believes there is, Reuters TV is playing the long game. “Cable took years to make money,” Palmer said. “As the distinction between broadcast and cable is eroding, so will the distinction between broadcast, cable and online.”

November 03 2010

18:00

Election night video streams: How TV-like is too TV-like?

If the 2008 election coverage was a coming-out party for social media, then last night was to some extent a party for live-streamed video. On news sites large and small, national and local, the red-and-blue infographics you’d expect to see stretched across homepages were often broken up by boxes of straight-from-the-newsroom, live presentations by reporters. Two biggies in that group came from two biggies in online news: The New York Times, building off of its TimesCasts experience, offered an occasional, from-the-newsroom live-stream — a first for the paper — while the Wall Street Journal, building off its daily NewsHub video, featured a constant, six-hour-long event.

Both “broadcasts” had a Wayne’s World-but-in-suits feel to them: fairly casual, conversation-oriented, and, most of all, markedly lo-fi in setting and aesthetics — a kind of cable-access-channel-like response to the ZOOM! POW! PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEDONTCHANGETHECHANNEL! pizzazz of cable news proper. It was a bit of a back-to-the-future move for news organizations that largely marketed last night’s coverage not in terms not of personality — “let Dan Rather guide you through election returns” — but of platform: “We have X graphic!” “Tune in for X interactive!” On cable channels, the anchors and reporters and news analysts and commentators were often framed not merely as authorities in their own right, but also as hosts for a pageant-like parade of pretty new technologies. (Check out CNN’s awesome new Hologram Wall! And, oh yeah, some reporter.)

The video feeds suggested a reverse of that: On the webcasts, technology became the conduit for the personality. The video brought bylines to life (so that’s what Jim Rutenberg looks like!); it humanized the otherwise extra-personal data and narrative that pinged around the papers’ sites last night. And while there’s something to be said for the lean-back experience of effortless immersion that is watching election results, as opposed to reading about them or hearing about them, online — for news audiences, passivity itself can be a selling point for content — it’s an open question how much room the web has for such straight-from-cable thinking when it comes to the content that lives on it. Which is to say, the content that’s created for it.

Last night’s webcasts, as informal as they felt, also had the feeling of trying to be cable news without actually, you know, being cable news: They took the mores of the visual medium — analysis, punctuated by banter, interrupted by breaking news — and adopted them. Instead of adapting them. The attempts to bring a new dimension to election coverage was certainly admirable, as most experimentation generally is. But they also begged an open question: With the web’s increasing ability to act like television…how much should it act like television? Why try to out-TV TV?

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl