February 8, 2007
onBeing Is A Little Off The Mark
Between the creepy name and the glowing spermatozoa in the logo, readers can be forgiven for looking at the graphic on the right and assuming that washingtonpost.com is dabbling in creating Frankensteinian abominations/superbeings. Perhaps an alien/Katharine Graham hybrid that can squeeze secrets out of administration sources with its deadly tentacles? There's room for all sorts of mischief in that Arlington skyscraper.
Sadly, that's not the case. The project, entitled "onBeing", is actually a new series of video essays that the Post will be adding to every Wednesday. Here's how they describe it:
onBeing is a project based on the simple notion that we should get to know one another a little better. What you'll find here is a series of videos that takes you into the musings, passions, histories and quirks of all sorts of people. The essence of who they are, who we are.
Hmm. It sounds slightly questionable, particularly given the past year's cuts to the Post's news-gathering staff. But we do genuinely enjoy the Style section's Life Is Short feature, and this sounds like it's cut from the same cloth. Maybe it won't be so bad.
The site itself is an extremely slick Flash video player — it's worth clicking through just to check out the interface. And the clips are all nicely shot in a style cribbed from Errol Morris (you might recognize it from those "Switch" commercials that Apple ran in the 90s). But the actual content is less than compelling.
Right now there are four videos on the site:
- A Georgetown nun talking about how she always sort of wanted to be a nun
- An affable cheesemaker discussing cheesemaking ("at high altitudes you need less rennet")
- A kid edited together into an incoherent ramble about a number of things that sort of sound profound, if you're easily fooled
- A genuinely interesting clip of a gay Mormon man speaking about how and why he continues to practice a faith that doesn't want him
As you can probably tell, we were somewhat underwhelmed. Others might find different clips more or less appealing than we did, but we have a hard time imagining that anyone would be blown away by any of them. And we wonder if there's much chance of that changing.
That's because at its root, onBeing seems to be nothing more than a collection of personal essays with nearly-nonexistent constraints. That can be a fine thing — the same categorization can frequently be applied to This American Life, and that show is one of our favorite things in the world. But with an unclear focus, the only way for onBeing to promise viewers that they'll be consistently entertained is to offer curatorial brilliance. Failure to do so results in a hit-or-miss mess that's hardly worth keeping up with — e.g. NPR's wildly inconsistent This I Believe series, CDs of which WAMU has been desperately hawking during this week's membership drive.
It's possible that onBeing will be shaped into a truly compelling collection of personal ruminations, but it's got a ways to go before it gets there. It really is an awesome interface, though.
|
Ugh. onBeing looks like YouTube for 'tards. Waitaminit, YouTube is YouTube for 'tards. Can they even do that?
Now, give me some hot Katherine Graham/tentacle pr0n action, and I'm willing to subscribe to your newsletter. Heck, they're halfway there with the bukkake-esque logo.
The cheesemaker is lactose-intolerant. The nun is in her twenties. The kid is hilarious.
Is this intended to be criticism, or just an ad hominem swipe? I don't understand how cuts to the newsroom of the newspaper affect the ability of washingtonpost.com videojournalists - across the river, as you mention, and employees of a different company - to spend a few hours in a studio with interesting characters.
Disclaimer: I am a contractor for WPNI and TWP. I am not an employee. I speak for myself and am wholly unaffiliated with this project.
You're right, Chris: I should have been more clear in justifying my criticism. By mentioning the cuts I meant to call into question how onBeing relates to the Post's overall mission, and to highlight the fact that that mission is in jeopardy -- both at the Post and throughout the media industry.
My point is simply this: the Post is shifting resources away from news-gathering and directing them toward internet fluff. But we already have plenty of internet fluff. What we need is news-gathering.
I know, I know, the Post and Post.com are separate. I hear this a lot from people at the Post when it suits their needs; other times I hear about the incredible synergies and close ties between the two organizations. I think it's kind of stupid to pretend that the two organizations aren't interdependent to a large degree. It might've been true half a decade ago, but these days nobody should fall for it.
Basically, this initiative strikes me as what happens when someone says "people like web video! we need web video!", but then quickly realizes that producing video features that complement and are relevent to what the Post actually does would be too expensive or difficult. So instead they gather what institutional resources they can and put up some well-produced and inoffensive but ultimately irrelevant video clips with no clear goal in mind. It's a missed opportunity.
I just wrote a lovely comment with a link in it, and your damned system ate it.
This is Washington. Can you really say that giving big, sympathetic screen time to a married gay Mormon will not be considered offensive by some? I think that's a sharp tack for a newspaper (and its Web site) to take.
The videojournalists and editors at post.com spend every day creating video that reflects what the Post "does" - if you doubt this, refer to their video page.
I think it a bit disingenuous of you to criticize the Post for trying a new direction when the newspaper itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Witness the rise of DCist.
Anyway, I don't mean to valiantly leap to its defense. But your take on it struck me almost City-Paper-cynical. You really don't need to defend yourself against the marauding metro daily.
I found OnBeing to be pretty cool. I like that the post.com is taking a few risks--its good to see that.
I agree that news gathering should be the core of their mission, but they are trying some interesting things here, which might pan out.
Also, Chris, I am glad to know that I am not the only person (I guess there are many) that thinks the city paper is exceedingly cynical. It's one thing to offer serious and thoughtful criticism, its another to be downright mythanthropic about everything...
You must be joking! That kid with the killer snail was the best. He makes the kids in your Overheard section seem like dumbtards.
I don't get the value added. Why watch people on the internet when you can meet them for real?
Mark, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable meeting these people even though I liked their perspectives overall. I wouldn't have any reason to talk to a kid or a nun. It would seem nosy to ask a guy about his life partner. The woman makes cheese at home, so I'd never know that either. There are stories that would otherwise not get told here.
The most valuable and cherished parts of life aren't necessarily comfortable. People romanticize marathons, mountain climbing, and cross country trips, not television watching.
Get out there- it's your life. If people are willing to share videos of their own lifes on the internet, chances are they'd be willing to talk with you on the bus or at a coffee shop.
I guess I just view the trend toward virtual attachment as enabling an unhealthy real detachment. Obviously that's just my opinion and, just as obviously, here we are.
It's one thing to offer serious and thoughtful criticism, its another to be downright mythanthropic about everything...
You give the CP too much credit. While I'm sure their too clever by half writers are well aware of the concept of misanthropy, they really seem to believe they're just calling it as they see it and the whole world sucks.
Basically, this initiative strikes me as what happens when someone says "people like web video! we need web video!", but then quickly realizes that producing video features that complement and are relevent to what the Post actually does would be too expensive or difficult. So instead they gather what institutional resources they can and put up some well-produced and inoffensive but ultimately irrelevant video clips with no clear goal in mind. It's a missed opportunity.
I had a nice response to this, but sadly (and coincidentally considering Chris's post above) the posting system ate it because I dared to link to an outside side. Fair, but boy it would have been nice had the system given me my post back so I could eliminate the link. Ugg.
Still that beside the point and I will simply say that the above italicized paragraph is gravely wrong. Post.com has been very much involved in doing the quality "hard hitting" video journalism you say they believe is "too expensive or difficult" and they've been doing it for years.
I worked for Post.com for several years in the photography department and when they hired me in 2000 they already had a sizable staff of video journalists, which they retain to this day. And they cover not just local Metro stories, but international ones as well. The easiest way to make my point is to check out the work of Travis Fox. (Google: Travis Fox and washingtonpost.com ... then click on the first link.)
Another great effort that sticks in my mind is John Poole's work on the D.C. Police Department's unit that works with the LGBT community, although the video is not currently working.
I hope you can correct at least this sleight even if OnBeing ain't your forte.
You're right Andrew, my implication was unfair. It's clear that washingtonpost.com does a lot of great video work. I think that there is probably still room for improvement when it comes to integrating that work into stories instead of offering it as linked-to but otherwise standalone features in the Camera Works section. I'm sure that a lot of folks are similarly ignorant of just how much relevant video the Post offers. To be honest, the video I think of first when I hear "post video" is the content posted to the Sports Bog. And, entertaining as that is (well, on the rare occasions that I can get it to play on my mac), I assume it's not what the Camera Works people want folks to think of first when they consider the Post's video offerings.
But none of this changes my basic opinion of onBeing. It still remains unclear to me how it's supposed to relate to the rest of what the Post does. And, if it's to be taken on its own, I still find its content to be uninspiring relative to the care and professionalism that has clearly gone into its production and presentation.
Finally, I'm sorry for the lost post -- we find these comment problems just as frustrating as you do, but unfortunately that functionality is not within DCist's direct control. The folks at Gothamist are aware of the situation and are continuing to work to improve things.
One more time for those who don't know. If you take the h t t p : / / off the front of your link, your post won't be rejected.
Thanks for the response, Tom.
I too favor solid hard-hitting work, but I do think OnBeing does fits within the bounds of journalism. Journalism at its best is more than a digest of the decisions of those in power, combined with a sprinkling of concern about those who lack it. At its essence, I think journalism should do its best to accurately reflect the world we live in... and I think OnBeing is part of that.
Now I'll shut up, since having two Post folks in one thread seems a bit much.