The revolution will be televised

Jennifer Lush of Editor’s Weblog makes an interesting point that despite the rise of blogging among the unwashed masses, there’s a hole in video blogging that journalists can exploit:

Video blogging, quite simply a blog which employs video as its medium, is a phenomenon which hasn’t shown the same success as its text-based parent amongst everyday web users. Despite the fact the ‘tools of the trade’ – cameras, editing software, and a platform to broadcast – are no longer unaffordable or complex obstacles, the significant investment of time to produce something that is of a publishable quality is still a drawback for many.

She says that while any man with a decent command of language and a fresh perspective can out blog a trained journalist, it’s a lot harder to out video-blog someone who is trained and experienced in video.

As the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words, and journalists should take advantage of the skills they already have, with some modifications for the online audience, and make the most of the void in the video blogging market.

In related news, the Telegraph’s report that Twitter was about to launch video blogging turned out to bogus.

Google says you can’t charge for news, silly goose.

Google CEO and internet tyrant Eric Schmidt was recently asked what he thinks about Rupert Murdoch’s plan to charge visitors for online news.

His response echoes the words of most cynical commentators in the online news debate: people may pay for niche media like the Wall Street Journal but fat chance getting anyone to pay for general news.

“In general these models have not worked for general public consumption because there are enough free sources that the marginal value of paying is not justified based on the incremental value of quantity.”

“So my guess is for niche and specialist markets … it will be possible to do it but I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do it for all news.”

While the perspective isn’t a new one, Schmidt’s comments are interesting for two reasons:

1) This is from Google, and if Google know anything its how people use the web.

2) As Editor’s Web Blog points out, his comments seem to contradict a proposal the company put forth this month to the Newspaper Association of America which laid out a micropayment system for online news. Here’s their summary of the proposal:

Google believes that an open web benefits all users and publishers.  However, “open” need not mean free.  We believe that content on the Internet can thrive supported by multiple business models — including content available only via subscription. While we believe that advertising will likely remain the main source of revenue for most news content, a paid model can serve as an important source of additional revenue.  In addition, a successful paid content model can enhance advertising opportunities, rather than replace them.

Do these words feel a tad hollow given Schmidt’s recent remarks?