I'm writing up my second entry in this blog with a bit of trepidation, as I'm sure the whopping three people who read the last post are clamoring for more.

The knowledge of the blog at this point is pretty limited, as we've been struggling with the Web site on how to make the blogs a bit more visible.

Hopefully we'll get the kinks hammered out soon. Also, I'm hopeful we'll be able to pester corporate enough to updating our Web site.

So, to the couple people who know about it, welcome back!

Anyway, this post is similar to the last one, wherein I discussed the love-hate relationship newspapers currently have with the Internet.

For years, way before I ever got involved with newspapers, there's been nail biting about television news overtaking newspapers as the preferred method for getting news.

Now, I'll admit my bias. I was trained to do newspapers and newspapers pay my bills. So, naturally, I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that we're the more noble of the news gatherers.

However, the tables have been turned a bit. The June/July issue of the American Journalism Review contained a column by Deborah Potter. The title was: "Playing on TV's Turf: Newspapers are ramping up their online video offerings. Will that endanger local TV news?"

One can only hope.

In her column, Potter tallies off a laundry list of newspapers that are taking steps to educate their photographers — and reporters — how to shoot and edit video.

Not to slight television news, as I'm quite aware they work just as hard as us. However, I believe a good function for video news is as a supplement to the written word.

Video carries a power in and of itself. It allows readers (er... viewers) to see the sources the journalists talk to. It gives a better visual idea of what the reporter sees and writes about.

However, the danger of video news is its tendency to not explain things well. The average news spot for television is 30 seconds. That's about 200 words.

The average news story is about 20 inches, which is 500 words. In the time it takes to write out a news story, a good journalist can tell several points of view and educate readers enough. The dangers of a 30 second news spot is it gives enough information to scare and titillate.

I realize I'm sort of working in generalities here. Not every video news caster uses their 30 seconds to tease and scare. And not every print journalists attempts to educate as well as possible.

I'm simply working with ideals here.

The list of newspapers shooting original content includes the San Jose Mercury News, the Washington Post and California's Ventura County Star.

Add the Dodge City Daily Globe to the list.

Which brings me to the videos you've seen on our Web site.

It's with a mix of excitement and frustration we've taken on the videos on our page. I think there's the great potential to expand upon a story, especially if it lends itself well to the audio visual bent.

However, as there's a great big neon line that often divides print journalists from television journalists, I can't help but feel a bit like a traitor.

So, here's where I turn to you, the two or three readers of this blog. What do you think about the slow but steady updates of dodgeglobe.com?

Are the videos worth it? Would you like more? Less? None at all?

Until then, we'll just keep plugging away with our little attempt at convergence.

- Mark V.