Why should science reporters who've mastered the use of the printed word bother to "embrace cheap video cameras, YouTube and Final Cut Pro?" The multitalented panel for this workshop session at ScienceWriters 2009 came up with plenty of reasons — ranging, from hooking in additional readers to pleasing Web advertisers to covering topics that are far more compelling when shown than told. But perhaps the best argument was the videos and slide shows created by panel members that were, used as examples.
Download an MP3 audio file of this session.
Why should science reporters who've mastered the use of the printed word bother to "embrace cheap video cameras, YouTube and Final Cut Pro?" The multitalented panel for this workshop session at ScienceWriters 2009 came up with plenty of reasons--ranging, from hooking in additional readers to pleasing Web advertisers to covering topics that are far more compelling when shown than told. But perhaps the best argument was the videos and slide shows created by panel members that were, used as examples.
Sometimes gorgeous or compelling, sometimes plain hilarious, they made this technophobic reporter want to run out and give it a try.
"Start with 'What's the story?' then 'What's the best means to tell the story?'" advised New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, participating (appropriately enough) via Skype. Some aspects of a story are best told with text, others with video, sound, still images or dynamic graphics. With online presentations, "you can have the whole package," Revkin said. For instance, viewers of a Revkin video on Dot Earth could not only watch the dramatic movement of ice plates at the North Pole, but they could also hear the horrific, indescribable noise created by the plates grinding against each other. Revkin added that he takes his video camera everywhere, using it like a notebook to visually record his experiences during reporting trips. He urged newbie video reporters to pay attention to sound quality, investing in a cheap lapel microphone that can be clipped on a subject's jacket, or else getting up close to subjects — "in their face, if necessary" — to make sure the camera's microphone is picking up what they say.
Novices often try to use video to tell the entire story when text is a better, simpler choice for much of it, noted Craig Duff, director of multimedia for Time.com. "Use the video to really point to the thing that says, 'Wouldn't it be cool to see that?'" he said. For example, last September, Time.com used a short video produced by a freelancer to illustrate a story about Duke University research on how dogs solve problems. The sequence of dogs playing a shell game to uncover hidden treats was the site's most popular video that month: "It actually beat out Michael Jackson," said Duff said. Beginners should avoid using the zoom, he said, and should make sure their shots are long enough — 10 seconds is appropriate — to provide adequate material for later editing. Some still cameras, such as the Canon G10, shoot decent high-definition video, Duff added, but he encourages journalists to invest in a real video camera, whether it's a $100 "flip camera" or a $500 Sanyo Xacti. "Don't think that on one story, you're going to suddenly go out and shoot video," he cautioned. "The more you do it, the better you get."
Effective video for the Web doesn't necessarily have to be elaborate. As part of his coverage of a local UFO hoax, Kevin Coughlin, a science writer for Morristowngreen.com, conducted side-splitting on-camera interviews of shoppers in a big box store, asking them whether they believed in UFOs. Another video on the website, obtained from a store's security camera, showed a local jewelry store owner wrestling a would-be robber to the ground. The response was huge — and unexpected — Coughlin recalled. "Every TV station in New York City was in front of the store."
Slide shows with audio can be a powerful way to tell a story, but they require stunning photographs, a good narrator and a carefully crafted script, as Mark Airhart, a science writer for the University of Texas, discovered when he created one about geology research at his institution. Airhart's slide show depicts the work of a hydrogeologist at Cuatrocienegas, an unusual marsh within a desert whose endemic plants and animals are threatened by a falling water table. Images of the marsh were shot by a topnotch photographer, and Airhart had the researcher narrate the slide show. But getting the script to sound natural and pacing it properly was a learning process. "It's hard to get someone to read something that would sound like him talking," Airhart said, adding that production and editing of the slideshow required several months of work.
Panelists emphasized that, in general, editing video, audio and slideshows is the most complicated and time-consuming part of the process. Airhart used a program called Soundslides to create his slide show, but Duff added that the audio track for such a project is best created first, using other software, such as Audacity. For video editing, most panelists preferred Final Cut Pro, although they note it is expensive and takes time to learn. A smaller and cheaper version, Final Cut Express, is probably fine for beginners, Duff said.
Susan Okie, M.D., was a Freelance Travel Fellow at ScienceWriters 2009. She lives in Bethesda, MD and writes for the New York Times Science Times, the New England Journal of Medicine, and other publications.
.png)
