Today, someone asked me if I used to be in broadcast.

Now anyone who’s ever seen me could probably tell in an instant that I don’t have a broadcast look. Not to mention, I say like and um entirely too much. (It’s a habit I work on every day, and one I’ve come a long way with since freshman year thanks in large part to the daily lectures by a certain law professor. I’m also sensing it’s one of my new editor’s pet peeves, so I really need to drop it quick.)

It wasn’t my look or my speech that made the photographer I was with today ask me that. I think it was probably how I approached the story.

My paper isn’t necessarily cutting edge in terms of online journalism. I knew that coming in, and in fact that was part of the reason I came here. I could contribute and bring a lot to the table. (I will give them one thing, there is definitely a huge push for reader interaction, both online and in print. They do that very well. There are also a ton of breaking news and story updates throughout the day; well not a ton, but a respectable number. There is definitely the get the news up on the Web as soon as possible and then update vibe.)

The paper is only just beginning to do video and sound slides, and several of the staffers went to videography training recently. So it’s still in the early stages. I was glad today to see that when I was sent to cover a fire, without a second thought they sent a photographer and then another photographer to shoot video.

So, when I was out there interviewing people and he was shooting the fire fighters/B-roll, I would tip him off on who he should get comments from on video and why. From the fire chief to the business owner to the employee who first spotted the flames. I mean, you can only tell so much from words in print. The emotion doesn’t always come through, hence the appeal of video. (On the way back I even teased that if he was quick enough with his editing he could beat TV. We’re not quite there yet, but I say give it time. Plus, the story and photos beat TV by a long shot, so that counts.)

And it occured to me that while I am definitely still learning and even relatively routine things like covering a fire are still novel enough to hold my interest, I am not the only person learning new things. There’s a lot I can and intend to learn from my editors and other reporters and photographers, but there are also skills and a mindset I have that I can pass the other way. I can show them to think for Web in the way I do, not even as second nature so much as an expected part of the package. We can learn from each other.

I missed actually seeing Stephen Colbert on the O’Reilly Factor and vice versa when it happened Thursday.

Thank God for YouTube.

Colbert on O’Reilly — My favorite part,

Colbert: You know what I hate about people who criticize you.
O’Reilly: Who?
Colbert: They criticize what you say but never give you credit for how loud you say it..
O’Reilly: That’s true.
Colbert: … or how long you say it.
O’Reilly: There are not many people as loud as I am.

O’Rielly on Colbert — My favorite part,

O’Reilly: We make mistakes, but we have to respect the country.
Colbert: We may make mistakes, but we must never admit them.
O’Reilly: No, we should admit them. We should admit them. This was a huge mistake, me coming on here. I’ll admit that.
Colbert: I hope I can change your mind on that.
O’Reilly: I doubt that.

Seriously go watch them if you need a laugh. Or kick back to John Stewart on Crossfire last year.

I saw this video in today’s Al’s Morning Meeting. It is young black women talking about what it means to be black, stereotypes, perceptions, and more. Perhaps because African-American studies interests the sociologist in me or maybe because of my own work and history with these topics, the video really struck a chord.

I don’t know how the interviewer was able to get such candid responses, but there’s definitely a lot to be said for just letting people talk, as she did. I think this is a great example of when it’s appropriate to find that average person and give them a soapbox or microphone and let them tell you what’s on their mind. It isn’t so in your face as the average man on the street interview. It’s more subdued and there’s more of a point to it.

This post about videography basics pretty much sums up the entire videography class I had to take for my major. In one concise, digestable post. Although learning to use Final Cut Pro, shoot video, set up a tripod, use white balance and image stablization, log & capture, and all that fun stuff was definitely helpful, I sure did hate the three-hour long classes when I had to sit through them.

This post sums up what I actually remember (two years later) in what I’d estimate is fewer than 1,000 words. If you’re interested, the site for my videography class is here. The blog is more readable, so go read it.

It probably shouldn’t, but this parody ad, which I saw linked from Romenesko, about the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times made me laugh. It’s based on the I’m a Mac/I’m a PC ads that are pretty funny themselves.

My favorite part of this is the end:

Sun-Times: Hey what’s that white thing with the wires coming out of that guy’s ears?
Tribune: Oh. That’s an iPod. They’re all over the place now.
In unison: TREND STORY!

It wouldn’t be so funny if it weren’t true. But there are other funny quips in the ad, too.

While on the topic of parody ads, here’s one for the Microsoft Zune phone. It’s pretty lame, but the point it makes is funny.

I just scanned the headlines on CNN.com and noticed this one: 10-year-old sees Hussein in noose, hangs self.

Now that only further complicates the ethical decisions I talked about in my previous post on Saddam’s death caught on camera. Who could have foreseen something this terrible happening? But, isn’t it also our responsibility to plan for the unforeseen circumstances of life? :shrug: Not that I’m passing judgment on anyone who ran the video/photos. Most everyone did to one extent or another. But this does raise some more questions worth thinking about.

Also, a point I meant to make earlier this week when I read this story on CNN, it is interesting to note how differently the tape of Steve Irwin (aka: the crocodile hunter) being killed by a stingray is being handled. Only one copy kept (or so they say) and given to his wife. Granted we’re talking about the difference between a dictator and a beloved TV personality. But still both much-publicized deaths caught on film.

As many anticipated, there is a video of Saddam Hussein’s last moments. His very last moments. His walk to his execution and of his last words. Even, yes, his moment of death. We all saw the official video a few days ago. It cut before the plank below Saddam was released. But then the unofficial one hit the net. Yep. Video capable cell phones now make even this, a highly guarded, extremely controversial and yet personal moment available for mass consumption. And the masses are definitely consuming it. The video is viewable on YouTube, of course, and nearly a million people have already viewed just the one link to it I clicked. (I’m not linking here, but just type in saddam on YouTube if you really want to see it.) The AP reports the person suspected of shooting this video is now in custody.

This raises all kinds of interesting ethical questions for journalists. I can just see Jan’s excitement now as she will inevitably bring this up in her ethics class this spring. So much for the car in the canal debate; this is even more interesting and timely. SO… I imagine her asking, would you show the video? How much of it? Would you run the a photo on the front page? Which frame? Why/why not? Does the newsworthiness of the person/event change the rules? How much is too much information? Is there such a thing? What theory would you use to defend your decision? Ah, how I miss ethics class. For me? Well, I wouldn’t run it. I won’t even link it. I wouldn’t even run the photo with a noose around his neck. But that’s me. I do have to wonder, though, while I wouldn’t expect to see his actual death broadcast on CNN, is linking to it on say YouTube almost the same thing? But I reason people will see it anyway, so why not provide people with the information they want? If they don’t want it they don’t have to click. Well… not quite.

This brings me to my personal reaction. I couldn’t help myself when I saw the first link to the “official” video. I was curious. Not about Saddam’s last moments — although I did find myself feeling weirdly mournful, how can you not be sad about any life, yes even that of a tyrant, that ends in an untimely death? — but curious about what the MSM would show, how much they thought I could handle.

I sat at my computer screen with my hands over my eyes only half watching, prepared that at any moment I could see his actual moment of death but praying I wasn’t given that chance. I wasn’t sure I could turn away, but I was also sure I didn’t want to see. If that makes ANY sense. Those were my thoughts as I sat mesmerized by the short clip on CNN.

So when I heard the whole video was on YouTube, I did click the link. I hit a page flagging the video for viewer discretion, and I confirmed so I could see how many other curious onlookers had watched. But then I chickened out. I immediately hit pause and exited the page. It turns out, I couldn’t watch. But, the question still lingers. Should I be allowed to? Should that video or the video of any death or extreme tragedy be available, online or anywhere else? The rules have changed. Cell phones ubiquitousness have changed the rules. Whether it’s a racist joke in a comedy club or the much-heralded but private death of a dictator, you can almost guarantee that anywhere news happens, someone will capture it — and perhaps far more important than having the video, someone will post it online. And then users, like me, will not have editors making decisions on what they can or can’t handle. They will have to learn and decide for themselves.