Questioning.

After watching the multimedia argument on Wednesday I find myself still questioning...

Part of me thinks that multimedia posted to the website of a newspaper should be extremely relevant and professional. The equipment should be more than just a point & shoot (considering we have been working with them, and frankly, they take pretty crappy video). The multimedia should be something a reporter is proud of and enhances a story that can be better with different parts, such as a slideshow, or a video. Yet, there is this other part of me that thinks, "why not throw everything up on the web?" If you have the technology and the resources, chances are, someone will watch your video. But, will this take away some of the credibility and professionalism of a newspaper? Will a video of a dog catching a frisbee in a park, for instance, really do anything for your paper?

I want to say that it seems more acceptable for a small newspaper to load anything onto a website, while the NY Times may need to evaluate their material a bit more closely, yet, what does this say about small papers? Having interned at a smaller paper, I don't want to see nonsense displayed across the website just because someone knows how to use a point and shoot camera.

So, where does that leave us? There needs to be a balance. There needs to be relevance in multimedia, accuracy, and a sense that the person knows what their doing. If that means eliminating point and shoot cameras from an office, than so be it. It's not just about the equipment though, but about the person using it. Don't expect that just because a point and shoot camera is easy to use that we'll have the next Stephen Speilberg on our hands.