DISQUS

Some excellent points there Zac. Maybe we don't know what the model for this is yet but it's clear the potential is there.

It's a good skill but many mistake a good skill with a defining practice. Shorthand does not make the journalist.

There seems to be some idea that shorthand is the failsafe when the batteries in this flash in the pan digital go flat. It won't. Lets see shorthand where it belongs; a great skill and nothing more

But no danger that my spelling could get any better

I know theres always a danger that if I'll get tarred as the Dreamweaver advocate in a debate like this. I'm truly not. So I do sympathize with you when you had to put up with a whole module of dreamweaver. I agree- a bit of an overkill.

I'm not teaching dreamweaver as a module. It just gets used where appropriate, to do a job. It won't be used next year, But this year, with a lot of handholding, it does,

In that sense I think their is a danger that dreamweaver can be a bit of straw man in the debate. A bit of a totem to represent web 1 when we are all supposed to be web 3.

The truth is that any software can be as complex or as simple as you want to make it. I know there are parts of word I will never use and I think I had my first flying arrow in Powerpoint this week. They can do loads but . I use as appropriate.

Ultimately it's what works. As I say to my students, Use Dreamweaver, use word, use wordpress and save the page; use a hammer and some nails if you can get it to work on IE, However you do it. Just do it.

Great Post Zach

I give in. Mercy.

I obviously don't get it.

I though that when you pushed a strategy forward that it was important to at least try and manage the expectations of the people you expect to, at least start, the process. If you lose some to 'professional differences' well that happens.

But obviously not.

It seems that all you need to do is just push all the content you have in to super database and then rock up and tell all the lazy ludditte journos who can't do their job that they better put up or shut up.

I'm sure they can do the maths on that plan

Why is the pay wall relevant wrt the points you made about video? Everyone knows pay walls are a bad idea (especially for your model). Of course people won't pay for an old video who said they would? Maybe people have said that the long tail would be better served with the story based video they produce as appose to the quick fix approach. But that's just your goal with a different strategy.

Your not prizing open any management oysters and showing pearls of wisdom when you say that opening up an archive without a pay wall, properly optimized, will attract traffic to the site.

Thats what the debate is about here. Which type of video best serves the strategy. But i feel a merry go round starting here.

Look, I'm not saying that you get better morale by letting people produce long documentaries. That's like me saying you believe that you don't need journalists to produce a newspaper website - an over simplification.

To be frank quick video works for me just as well as 'doco' style. I don't actually care. I would rather it was right for the story, audience and organisation just as much as right now.

I am saying that which ever route you take there are people who need to be managed and managed well. Not just search but Hearts and minds.

But you seem pretty clear that isn't a priority for you.

Your view seems top be that if you generate enough stuff now, fill the site with crap as you put it, that will some how build up a critical mass of content that will suddenly become self-sustaining - a kind of perpetual motion machine of news.

So let's cut to the chase. Let's put video strategy to one side. Let's say that your depth and understanding of the inner workings of the newsroom has won me over. Because you have obviously got the whole thing worked out.

So how about answering the question. Who is going to produce all this content?

And these successful websites build themselves how?

Good enough may be good enough right now. I buy that view but what do you do when right now is finished? What do you do next? More importantly, who will do it for you? Where is your ROI on your staff because is sure has hell sounds like your not investing in them right now?

I think you'll be spending your time managing staff churn with that attitude. But hey, maybe if you put enough staff through your website you'll get a long tail benefit.

I appreciate you didn't say that you should do video for video's sake. My point was that no one was and assuming that anyone that isn't getting the version of p&s disruption is. Well it serves your point but it doesn't reflect the truth.

And since when did hits do nothing for newspaper.com? When you do all this long tail video, which has nothing other than the who, what where and why - very sticky stuff btw that - what does that result in. A warm fuzzy feeling to sell to the ad department? Just what does do lots for newspaper.com in the long run?

I kind of agree with what you are saying but be careful of throwing terms like craft away when you are not really talking about video content but really talking about targeting traffic for product.

Craft is not nonsense. A craft is something you learn. Even Howard has talked about (crafting a disruptive video strategy) As you suggest it can be, perhaps, learned on the job (with some of our mistakes on show) rather than trying to get all the skills in place before producing anything.

But along with craft comes an element of pride in the job. I think many, half-baked, attempts to implement a disruptive policy forget this.

Getting video on the website is not just about getting it right with an audience or with advertisers (note the not just, I'm not saying they aren't important). It's also about getting right with your staff. They are the ones who may be going home moaning to their wives like you did.

You're right, they may only matter to them. But telling them that they have to just 'get over that' doesn't cut it. And unless you expect this 'crap' just to appear from that little hole below the long tail, I would imagine they are a group of people that are worth keeping sweet.

I know that isn't the way disruptor's like Howard are doing it. Like those advocating the quality approach, training and an investment in hearts and mind stuff are the key here. But in your defence, why not give a little grace on the other side.

I don't think that anyone is advocating doing video for the sake of video unless

a)you count the disruptive model as a video for the sake of amount of traffic approach or

b) you are expanding your approach to have two definitions for video - video (the stuff you see on the website) for the sake of video(that over produced craft stuff that videographers go on about)

I get the impression you would advocate neither.

People are getting a bit wound up over trying to have some form of identity in a very fluid market. It has to be more than audience and traffic in the first instance. Shouting 'wake up and smell the marketing coffee' isn't going to help build confidence or help develop a strategy.

But less positive about my use of english

"...way we develop if this how we go about developing"

What am I talking about

Shucks, now I'm blushing.

Sometimes the "cutting edge of journalism education" feels more like the seat of your pants.

Giving students the chance to experience the web as a proffesional arena is a gamble, especially when you see how some of them behave in that myspace enironment.

But Graham (and Ferancois) is spot on. The ability to have an inclusive - student and pro - experience like this vital and what makes the web so exciting.

I think we can all feel a lot more positive about the way we develop if this how we go about developing.

great stuuf, and great sound too. As a pre-built in cam powerbook owner I have cam envy.

In case you were thinking of doing more of this, then this gizmo may be of interest

http://www.mungaimirrors.co.uk/huckleberry/ilis...

Very, very true Martin

Video clips and images squashed and squeezed because the template won't fit widescreen GRrrrrrr

It also restricts the journo's doing all of that search engine savvy stuff the marketeers want them to do.

Adrian Holovaty had a nice view on this http://www.holovaty.com/blog/archive/2006/09/06... - with some interesting comments

Martin isnt in!!

I haven't seen the spread yet apart from the image above so I couldn't make out all who where in. I assumed Martin was being coy by not including his inclusion in his links above.

Surly he is the hub of all uk journalism blogging traffic?

Hi Martin.
I think you are right about the defined routes but there are some reasons for that - nctj, restrictive industry etc.

It's interesting you picked up on Chris' blog. I came across it a while back and spat feathers for a while over the attitudes expressed. (so much so I left a comment).

It was less that the students didnt get online, more that they thought print was somehow the safe way to go. As one commentor said:

"That said, if I really wanted to be an online journalist (which I don’t) I’d actually do the newspaper course anyway. Print and web are fairly close disciplines.

In that statement you have all you need to know about why students arent equiped to work online. All I need to do now is find out who peddles that bulls**t line to them and lock them in a box and perhaps we can all move on.