As some of you may know, I’ve been trying off and on for the past year to post videos on my blog in a convenient form. Lots of frustration, particularly since I started video recording bits of endorsement interviews. I think they would add a lot to people’s understanding of the vignettes I’ve been posting.
So I decided to put one of the recent batch on YouTube and see what happens. I put up on in which GOP Rep. Jim Harrison, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, talking at the beginning of the meeting about his opponent, Democrat Boyd Summers.Check it out. Let me know how it works — if it does.
Related Posts
The video and audio don’t match up, and the video seems to be skipping a few frames every second.
Good Lord… That was brutal. The body language was typical of what you’d see when the police are grilling a murder suspect.
I guess lawyers hate being on the other side of the questions.
And his attempts at attacking Summers while using his folksy, good ole boy patois was about what you’d expect. 100% Prime Grade A Politician.
Awful video. Awful interview.
Great example of why print media shouldn’t attempt video without training and experience.
The interview may have yielded enough raw material to be distilled into a column but watching it is worse than watching sausage being made.
Well, you’re seeing less than three minutes at the beginning of an interview that went on for an hour or so. That’s as much as my camera can capture.
And actually, I’m not such a bad videographer. I do have a lack of resources (such as software to convert an .avi file into another format, which is what I think is messing up the one on YouTube — the original is fine).
I’d like to see how any of those fancy-pants TV guys would do if they were conducting an interview while trying to shoot video with their own, personal small-format digital camera that was mainly made for taking still pictures…
I wasn’t even referring to the video quality– or any of the technical aspects.
Maybe you should talk to a good television or radio interviewer about how they prepare. I’m willing to be that they map out the interview pretty closely.
Meanwhile, a print interview can be much looser; much more boring overall; and, much less structured.
The print media writer selects the wheat and tosses the chaff. The reader doesn’t get to hear how poorly organized or phrased the original question was, for instance.
Here we get to see it warts ‘n all– and it ain’t pretty.
Yeah, you’re seeing my style. Cindi is very structured, with a specified set of questions — but that comes later. What you’re seeing here is the sitting down, how’s it going, whatcha been up to, how about that guy running against you, how’s the family, stuff that I do.
Cindi hates that, and gets nothing out of it. You can tell from her voice she’s not very comfortable during this portion. I can’t do without it, myself. I like to form a more holistic impression of the person, which I combine with the objective stuff that I get from Cindi’s or Warren’s or Mike’s structured questions. The lead questioner depends on what level the person is running on, more or less — Cindi is state, Warren’s metro and Mike is national.
For instance, Gov. Huckabee from Arkansas was coming to see us today (but had to cancel at the last minute because of transport difficulties). That would have been Mike’s meeting.
As for the way they do things on TV. Good Lord, if I were forced to sit through 50-some interviews like that, or even one, I’d have to poke my eyes out.