In a world where we’ve shifted to be more virtual than real, a massive number of developed hi-tech possibilities, today seems to be a haven for media. And the haven is the dot.com platform that emerged a wide range of opportunities to get informed. So, all media outlets from magazines and newspapers to traditional broadcasters made use of that and started to add more content to their websites: opinionated features, comment sections, as well as podcasts and videos. Today I want to look at their video section, because there is a big debate out there about whether videos work as good as they do for traditional broadcasters.
To start I would like to analyse the BBC News website, that is a very popular one and it’s seen by many as one of the best online newspapers as well. So, as a traditional broadcasters it follows the same rules and conventions online. Moreover, the BBC News Channel consists of a lot of short videos and news headlines. I think is the best chance for anyone to get the latest news in two minutes time.
Moving to The Guardian, an interesting thing happens here. The quality broadsheet also has its own reportage and reporters. Although it tends to respect the same conventions as a traditional broadcaster, having the same footage that one can find on the news broadcaster’s websites but without a presenter or a voice over. It also focuses on footage taken by individual journalists with simple cam records. As the news stories, the videos belong to certain categories as World, UK, Politics, Sports, etc. Surprisingly enough, all the videos belong to The Guardian.co.uk and stand alone on its video page, with a short introduction above.
Looking at the New York Times video library I noticed a completely different format. The online newspaper has its own news bulletins where a presenter is looking straight in the camera and presents the news. So, it could be argued that it respects the codes and conventions of traditional broadcasters but one can feel the difference. Also, I could notice some short documentaries made my individual journalists that tend to follow the narratives of a proper TV documentary with the presenter’s voice over, interviews and footage. Though, despite the fact that it contains genuine video footage, a large number of images were taken from traditional broadcasters like Fox News or CNN.
I think it’s great that newspapers websites include video and audio material, because we have the chance to get all the information within the platform of that particular website. I would also guess that the old adage ‘Only seeing is believing‘ plays a vital role here. But bear in mind that it’s not always like that, because journalists could drive the story forward and completely change the meaning of it.