Dad With Teeth

New York Times Video Rant

As part of their redesign, the New York Times has included a rather significant section of original video stories. Well they are almost video stories... They are rudimentary clips with rather ham-handed production value. It reminds me of what I see on high school web pages. The stories are constructed very simply: a talking head with still photos chopped in to illustrate a point. I am guessing there are no dissolves either because: a) the number of key-frames needed to stream a dissolve exceeds the bit-budget for their files, or b) the intern editing these stories has yet to discover the effect. These stories appear to be a natural evolution from the effective Flash audio/photo packages they have been creating for the past few years. But it appears the folks at the NYT are quickly discovering that while making TV is not that difficult, making good television should best be left to the professionals.

Three examples from today's postings include:

1) Reporter Linda Greenhouse discussing the Padilla case while seated in front of a dreadful photograph of generic file cabinets. The lighting on this looks somewhat like the Spanish Inquisition (or at least the way the lights would have looked if they had electricity in the 15th Century.)

2) A concert by 17-year-old songwriter Sonya Kitchell. I am sure this seemed like a great idea initially. Give a little sample of her music by taking 3 consumer-quality cameras and videotaping the show. The only problem is only one of the operators appears to have ever used a video camera before. The exposure is different from shot-to-shot, some of the framing could best be described as curious and someone needs to introduce one of the camera operators to a tripod. The interview is well lit, but they did it in a noisy room and some of the background clatter makes it hard to understand her interview over my computer's speakers. A user isn't going to view this on a television, and the audio mix should reflect the technology most likely used for display. The editing is better with sound-ups and cross fades, but the slo-motion section in the middle is a clumsy cheat for not having video to cover the song they are playing.

I3) n the "Vows" section we get a story about how a couple met, reminiscing as they prepare for their imminent nuptials. The interviews are lit well, and (mercifully) they used a tripod, but after watching the story I was left with the question, "Why do I care?" This is a home movie posted on the New York Times. Its placement gives it the same gravity as the Padillia case, where clearly it is little more than a wedding video.

As with any new technology, there are bound to be growing pains. But what pains me is this is an example of an organization feeling compelled to ignore the narrative structures and production values that have been evolving for 60 years. They are not breaking the paradigm with a new voice, but instead they are ignoring the basic tools the audience expects for effective and engaging content. If I were Leonard Apcar, I would seriously question if this feature was adding value to my paper.

OK, I'll stop ranting now.

posted by Drew Keller @ Tuesday, April 04, 2006