Response: Newspapers should jettison (most of) their web video efforts

Here is my response to Professor Selvin’s blog post:

I agree that video is virtually useless when it comes to newspaper sites.

During my summer internship at Newsday.com, I learned extensively about what the online editors really wanted to focus on. Video had special places to go and they would usually make an effort to put some video in a prominent position on the site, but most of the time it was clear that their efforts were half-hearted. They were much more interested in putting up photo-galleries about anything and everything (a lot of which were done by the interns).

While I also question the true value of jamming endless photo-galleries down readers’ throats, I do agree with newspaper editors who see them as far more important than video.

The reason I myself believe that video is not successful nor worth it on a newspaper website, is because people are not going to a newspaper website for video. People who go to newspaper websites are going to get what newspapers were made to do.

Written stories.

As a matter of fact, I disagree with the notion that “major” newspaper sites such as the New York Times have been successful in using video pieces. I agree much more with another commenter who basically said that these major papers are “successful” just in comparison to minor papers. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have (had) massive readerships in print so naturally they are going to have massive viewerships online so naturally they are going to get more views on videos. But people still go to these sites for written news first.

Why is CNN so successful with video?

I don’t know…perhaps it’s because they are originally a VIDEO MEDIUM.

Crazy thought right? Not really.