Editing for Content
| Think like a producer. Think about content! But does that content have to be any good? Nope. |
I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of that worn-out expression, "content is king." That's because even though I think that phrase is somewhat true, it only goes part of the way in telling the whole story. Content is not only king. It is queen, prince, princess and every other loyal subject in the video kingdom, too.
But what can we, as digital video editors, do about content? Well, lots of us wear many hats, and are producers. We are in control of the content (sort of). But if we're not, we can still interject ideas and use techniques that will make subtle changes in the content. We can even cause an uproar, like the one that ensued when a sly editor slipped the word "rats" into one frame of a spot for George W. Bush criticizing the Gore campaign (now the FCC is investigating -- here's the latest). Did campaign wags tell this editor to put that frame in, or did he/she accidentally add it? Or was it just a stray fragment of the word "bureaucrats?" Maybe the editor was just tired of all that crappy content going by, and was eager to spice things up. The editor was thinking like a producer, even if he wasn't one. That's my point here: Think like a producer. Think about content! If you are a producer, editing your own stuff using digital video gear, then good for you -- you control most of what happens on your final product. But if you're not a producer, you can still control lots of those frames flickering before your eyes in the edit suite. It's the content, stoopid.
But does that content have to be any good? Here's where the opinions of the masses start to matter -- one man's schlock is another's gem. If you've been a victim of the onslaught of junk TV lately, namely Survivor, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and all their sleazy imitators, you may be realizing the same thing I am: Hey, it doesn't take a lot of talent to create content that zillions of viewers will stare at for an hour. It doesn't have to be good to be profitable. No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the masses.
Beyond that, many of you reading this may have already come to the realization that on the Web (where many of us will have most of our work showcased in the future, if not already), the same puritanical standards of commercial television networks do not apply. So, by extension, think of the possibilities: Who Wants to Have Live Sex With a Millionaire, Who Wants to Have a Finger Chopped Off for 10 Grand, or Who Wants to Do Who-Knows-What for a Big Pot o' Gold. Voyeur TV is making the commercial TV networks a mint, but the whole concept is showing the way for lots of other less well-heeled producers with less than pristine ideas.
Yes, when the phrase "content is king" was coined, nothing was said about the quality of that content. Kings can be evil, twisted, tyrannical despots, but they're still kings. So, many times, the lower the quality of content, the more likely it is to be watched. Some shows will be so bad, they'll be good. But the main point is, shows like Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire open the sluice gates for lots of producers with no money, talent, writing ability or creativity who are willing to exploit the voyeuristic impulse of their fellow human beings in exchange for hoards of currency.
So the question is "How Low Will You Go?" In this Internet-age limbo-rock dance toward the basement of decency, it'll be the most outrageous who attract most of the attention, especially at first. There are billions to be made by appealing to the lowest common denominator, and believe me, on the Web, we're talking a level of low that makes commercial schlock TV look like Citizen Kane.
So watch. As the 500 channels with nothing on expand to five million channels of TV-quality video streamed over the Web, the contentmeisters will be the new darlings of Wall Street, with the digital video editors molding, refining, and producing lots of it themselves. Sure, some program producers will be providing well-done, splendid, art-quality video presentations. But the really big money will be in schlock. But do we have a choice? Do we want to be millionaires? You bet we do, Regis. And that's my final answer.
Charlie White has been writing
about new media and digital video since it was the laughingstock of
the television industry. A technology journalist and columnist for the
past seven years, White is also an Emmy-winning Producer, video editor
and shot-calling PBS TV director. Talk back -- Send
Chazz a note at cwhite@digitalmedianet.com.
Previous Columns
Looking Ahead: The Age of
Spiritual Editing?
SIGGRAPH
2000 Roundup
Fix
it in the Mix?
NAB
2000 Wrap-Up
Mac?
Just Another Pretty Face
The Digital Video Editing
Crystal Ball
Thank-You Note to Santa: Thanks
for Bringing These NLEs For Me
What's With This 24p Stuff,
Anyway?
Digital
Video's Pizza Syndrome
HD Video Editing is Here. Now.
Welcome to Digital Video Editing.com