There’s journalist A who writes brilliant news articles. From him to the public.
And then there is journalist B, who is part of a four member team with a graphic designer, a media journalist and a video editor. The end result, the video, is from the journalist’s point of view, a list of compromises.
Many journalists dream of being the A-type, an independent creator, free from the opinions and demands of most people. One vision, as untouched as possible, depending only on his individual skill and effort. There’s no one to hold him back during the creation process.
He gets to devote the given time to the story as he sees fit. The time is allocated on him being the best journalist he can be. That is all. Beautiful.
Then there are the results. The success of the story. The views. The decimator of the journalist’s dream of being the A type, the “auteur.”
Video get’s more views than the same content as text.
Video can be seen as much more arduous to make, from the creator’s perspective, but it sure is much easier to watch than text.
Then the question remains, what weight the rulers of the media want to give to the success of the story, the views.
If the views are secondary, the traditional dream of a journalist prospers.
If the views dictate, as in free markets, the journalist’s position is lowered considerably, from a king into a member of a team. From a position of 100% to the position of 25%. No wonder many journalists are very unhappy, or worse, in denial.
The journalists are racing to convince each other on how the text still has a place even in the media of tomorrow.
Text to video is like horses to cars. Sure there are still horses around, it’s just that not in transportation.
I try to be provocative, to get a comment from you, dear reader…