Smart Video Strategies



In a perfect world, you would never see another news conference covered this way: Wide shot of the room (“At a news conference at City Hall today....”). Tight shot. Side view. Camera cutaway. Sound bite. Rear shot (ambitious photographer gets off the tripod). Another wide shot. End of story. Viewer bored. Viewer yawns. Viewer changes channel. He wanted to know why this story mattered. He got a tour of the furniture.

Television is not radio with cameras. Video is a powerful storytelling tool, and every time it’s used badly, that’s a wasted opportunity. The right words matched to the right pictures can make even a routine story impossible to ignore. Video and copy combined improperly renders even the most important story not worth watching.

Here are some ideas for marrying the best words with the best pictures.

Referencing... Not Repeating: Suppose you have shots of a huge fire with flames climbing 100 feet into the air. Nine out of ten writers will feel compelled to say, “Flames climbed 100 feet into the air tonight.....” That’s a waste of words. The pictures have already done a great job of showing how high the flames were. Why spend time saying it again? Reinforce and enhance the pictures by adding more facts about those flames (“The fire could be seen for miles...” “The heat was so intense, firefighters couldn’t get in...”) Let the pictures do their job, and the words do theirs.

Try to find something unique. Some pictures don’t speak. They snore. Like that boring news conference. Or a defendant walking that last 30 yards into the courthouse. Or, worse, his LAWYER walking into court! Stuff like this shows up on the evening news over and over again, because, in many cases, those are the only pictures available. But weak video need not automatically mean a weak story. Even a tiny detail can make a difference, or act as a hook. If it’s raining, for example, use that. “John Smith’s lawyers got soaked on their way into court, and things didn’t get much better inside, when the judge denied all their motions.” A gimmick? Sure. But it’s accurate, it’s conversational, and viewers will remember it.

Go to the file. For news conferences, just say no to those “beauty shots” of the room. If folks want a guided tour, they can watch “This Old House”. Appropriate file tape is a smarter choice. The recent plane crash for the NTSB presser. Kids in a classroom for a report on national reading skills. At least the words and pictures will be in harmony, strengthening each other. If no file is available, even a straight sound bite with a short intro is better than looking at a bunch of chairs.

Translate the Tuxes. This comes up every time a celebrity gets into trouble. Alec Baldwin slugs a photographer. Eddie Murphy picks up a prostitute. Christian Slater/Robert Downey Jr./Jean Claude Van Damme go into rehab. The video? Unless you’ve got some really terrific hidden cameras, it’s file, of course. Of Baldwin or Murphy or Slater et al, all dressed up, all smiles, arriving at the Oscars! They don’t look like they’re in trouble, do they? Talking about drugs or assault while looking at a glitzy photo-op is ridiculous. Take half a sentence to explain, “This was Eddie Murphy at the Oscars last summer...”

Just as every word we write matters, every frame of video counts too. If we remain focused and always concentrate on finding and using only the very best pictures available, combined with equally well-chosen words, our stories will jump off the screen, grab attention, and be remembered... exactly what we’re trying to do. Good luck!