I'm getting ready to begin interviews for the first class deadline and I'm realizing that I have no idea what I'm doing. Not only have I never used anything but pen and paper in an interview, but I've hardly ever watched audio slideshows on the Web. Naturally, I set out to find some examples. I wanted something more than just a video. I needed an example of narration, photos and interview clips as a guide.

I searched the St. Pete Times and Gainesville Sun without much luck. However, the New York Times had plenty of audio slideshows to choose from in almost every section of the site. I picked the slideshow on Mattel's recalls at random but found some useful information. While the narrator remained constant throughout the slideshow, clips of interviewees were placed throughout the story, in places where they would most logically make sense. It was very similar to a written news story in that way. The narrator's voice was distinguishable each time because it was always done with very clear audio, while the clips of the interviews all had background noise. While it can be hard to tell strangers' voices apart, that made it very easy to follow even without video. The only time it did get confusing was near the end, when two or three voices were talking to each other but were not identified.

This week I'll be interviewing two people about Bob Graham. Hopefully, I'll be able to blog later about the differences I saw in interviewing with the intent of capturing audio. As I said earlier, I'm completely inexperienced as of right now.

Today I was browsing the Gainesville Sun's Web site when I realized how different their videos are from actual broadcast news. I watched a video of reporters who were outside their comfort level and commenting on the next Gators game, and then I watched a video called "Silent Football," taken during a football game for the deaf.

http://www.gainesvillesun.com/section/multimedia01
I thought the second video was really interesting because it seemed so uncut, as if I were viewing the whole scene from the field. The clip opens with a coordinator or teacher talking with the referees as they are deciding on the hand signal that is to replace the whistle. It depicts reality so much more than anything on broadcast news because there are no time limits online. It looks like a home video more than it does a story on the 11 o'clock news. A journalist's job is to tell a story in a way that allows the reader or viewer to understand it clearly. A great journalist can tell a story in a way that makes readers feel like they were there. Web sites run by newspapers now have not only the tool -- but the obligation -- to put these videos on the Internet and show viewers the entire story. Online journalism is a different world as the role of gatekeeper diminishes and consumers of the information decide for themselves.

I then watched a video of a Latino festival and it was more of the same type of footage. The only difference was that there were more interviews in that clip. The interesting thing about those interviews, though, was that the people were barely heard over the sound of the band in the background, making it feel more personal and real.

As I begin this class, I have no prior knowledge of convergence in media. None of the other classes I have taken at UF have allowed practical experience of the skills required in this area. Many journalism textbooks mention the trend toward convergence in a few paragraphs -- maybe even a chapter -- but they don't prepare me in any way to deal with the Web.

However, I do realize how imperative it is to learn these skills. I stumbled across an example recently that's only slightly related to this class, but it does show the importance of utilizing the Web in every field. I was reading a marketing textbook this week that was discussing the declining popularity of the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia. After receiving a $2 million grant from IBM to create a new Web site, the museum was able to draw more visitors. The site - http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/ - takes online visitors on a "Virtual Visit" and allows artwork to be looked at more closely by zooming in. This isn't media convergence, but it does show that marketers who ignore the Web will be left behind, just as journalists will be.

As for newspapers, I am still viewing these sites as a user and obtainer of information -- not a media-pro. What I always find to be most helpful as an average viewer is the election coverage. This is a huge area for the Web because it's impractical to list a summary of candidates, qualifications and major issues in the newspaper each day, especially a year before the actual election. Every major newspaper seems to have been able to build a kind of crash-course election guide, but they differ in some aspects.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/candidates/index.html
The New York Times has every candidate displayed, along with the issues they support and videos of them. One of the things I really like about the New York Times coverage of the candidates is that they separate them into the groups "Officially Announced" and "Widely Mentioned," while the Washington Post doesn't provide information about these people.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign
The Washington Post, though, gives more information overall about the current candidates. By clicking on one of the links, you can see all the issues that are dominating in the campaign and the amont of mentions the candidate has given to each issue. It even has a tool that allows users to put the issue tracker on their Web sites. The Washington Post also has photos and videos of each candidate's complete career, as well as a financial summary and campaign tracker. I can't really think of any information that's been left out by this site. If anything, it's a bit overwhelming. But because of the additional information that we can post on the Web, an average American who wants to make the most informed election decision will be able to do just that.