Video rules the line-up

I found an article in the CJR Daily that struck me because we've all heard our broadcast instructors ask us, "Is there video?" whenever we want to do a story. This article, in particular, says that news values have gone out the window... as long as the story has video, it can get aired, even if the video is bad-quality home video.

In this case, the author highlights what she calls the "Tiggergate" incident, where the person dressed in a Tigger costume at Disney World supposedly punches the teenage son of a family during a photo shoot. She says the only reason this "story" made it to all the major networks and cable was because it was caught on video.

Indeed, I find this incident to be rather silly and not very newsworthy. Yet while good video is crucial to broadcast journalism, its significance and relevance to the general public should also be a factor in whether or not the story gets told. How many children out there will get socked in the face by a dressed-up character while at a theme park? Where is the relevance to people's everyday lives? Umm... I don't see the connection.

At the same time, we want our newscasts to have a variety of serious-light stories. But news judgment also comes into play here. Not only should we consider whether or not a story has video but also consider its importance. Had there been no light stories that could have been covered instead of Tiggergate, I might have said, "Cover it." It does have video, albeit not very good video.

Video should not be the final card in whether a story gets told. All elements of newsworthiness/variety/relevance/video (or lack thereof) should be taken into consideration. An important story that must be told should get told, even if it has no video. But a story with video that has no significance whatsoever should be kept on the sideburner, unless there is absolutely nothing else to fill the news hole.

CY

To view the article and the video, links are here:
Have Video, Will Air It
Tiggergate