I grade the celebrity faculty of YouTube’s online journalism school

See me after class, Bob (Image via Wikipedia)

Hey, all you budding citizen journalists out there; you now have your own free online J-school: The YouTube Reporters’ Center, located on the rustic, pixel-covered hippocampus of Cyberbridge, Massmediachusetts.

In the immortal words of Dave Barry, I am not making this up. YouTube really has enlisted a passel of well-known and semi-well-known journalists to give free (though very short) video classes to anyone wishing to join the ranks of their crisis-ridden, increasingly non-lucrative yet still mysteriously appealing profession. A couple of clicks and you’re getting lessons straight from such journalissimos as Katie Couric and Bob Woodward.

Of course, as a consumer, you’ll need some guidance here. And who better than Dean Grossblogger to play Rate Your Online Professor? Snarky adjunct that I am (I actually teach J-stuff at the night school of a nearby university) I hereby issue report cards to some of the more illustrious profs of YouTube U.

Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post, citizen journalism: C plus

Not a bad effort, Arianna, but you can do better. My main criticism is you’ve given us more of an overview or survey of the topic (along with a superfluous rah-rah recruiting peptalk that someone already watching your video doesn’t need) rather than providing nuts-and-bolts advice on how to go out and do the job. But I liked the video examples of citizen journalists doing their thing, ranging from the Iran uprising to the valiant CJs who caught Michael Richards’ racial rant and former Virginia Senator George Allen’s macaca blurt. You show promise; work a little harder next time. Go deeper.

Scott Simon, NPR, how to tell a story: A

You’ve done your homework, Scott, and it shows. Your presentation is straightforward and full of Journalism 101 verities. With your smooth, modulated voice and NPR sincerity, you don’t need any tricks or gimmicks (except for a two-camera approach). You just sit there and tell us about the good old classic story-telling techniques that work across all genres, media and platforms. All you need is another 40 minutes, a question period and much lower pay and you’ll be a lot like a real college professor.

Bob Woodward, Washington Post, investigative reporting: F

Bob, you are the epitome of the tired, droning, narcolepsy-inducing academic who inspired so many of us to cut our 8 and 9 o’clocks in college. Your visual aids—mainly B&W stills from that famous movie about you and Carl Bernstein—are pathetic. You start passably well, ticking off a serviceable three-point outline on how to go out and investigate. But then you get lost in an endless anecdote from your early career that swallows most of your piece and could’ve been told in about one-tenth the time. Your kicker, an assurance that Serious Journalism Will Endure because Ben Bradlee told you so is irrelevant and frankly none too reassuring. Sorry to have to flunk you, Bob, because you’re usually a hard worker, but I felt you weren’t really trying. (Oh and tell your camera person to lose the glare from the lighting bouncing distractingly off your glasses.)

Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, “How to Get Behind the Story:” D

Too many vague generalities to be of much use to the novice (Work real hard! never take no for an answer!), too much ho-hum filler (I did this story, then I did that story). Michael, you never actually get around to telling us how to get the story behind the story, (your ostensible subject here) or even why we’d want to. What’s wrong with just, you know, getting the story? What we need to know is how do I find a juicy story? How do I make good contacts with insiders? How do I get frightened or hostile sources to talk? How do I tell a truth from a lie? How do I keep from being pushed out a window by the powerful, sinister people I’m trying to nail? And like that.

Katie Couric, CBS Evening News, “How to Conduct a Good Interview:” B minus

Katie, for crying out loud, just because you’re lecturing on the art of interviewing doesn’t mean you need to do it by having someone interview you! (I think maybe you have some experience with talking straight into a camera, no?) And the interviewer begins by explaining to you what this project is all about? Like you weren’t told beforehand? Like the viewer isn’t aware of what he’s watching? Waste of time, kiddo. That said, you do give some good, basic tips on interviewing and you’re not boring. Another quibble, though: Relating some of your interview disasters was fun but why not show us clips? Aren’t you TV people supposed to be good on visuals? Finally, I’m not entirely sure you’re aware that most citizen journalists aren’t going to be conducting their Q&As on a network-TV news set with bigshots delivered to them in limos and then sent to a makeup person.

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, covering a global crisis: A.

Who would’ve figured on The Times’ Third-World-misery scribe turning in a smart, lively piece that’s full of hard-nosed practical tips for staying alive in scary locales? Nicholas, you’ve used your video tools adroitly for a print guy and you’re darkly funny. “There’s no point in getting a great interview with a warlord if afterward he kills you and takes your video recorder,” you tell reporter wannabes. Keep a decoy wallet with a few bucks in it for high-crime zones, you advise. “Never argue with people with large guns.” And your video finale, that William-Tell shtick with an Amazon native shooting a blowdart at a papaya on your head, is killer.

Josh Tyrangiel, Time.com, storytelling across platforms: A plus.

You’re not even a Scott-Simon-level celebrity, Josh, but I’m including you because your superb piece shows the way this thing should be done. Go to the head of the class. Your lesson is well-organized, smart, funny and actually teaches us something about integrating online resources. The visuals are excellent and enhance the words. Hmm, maybe there’s a correlation here. The less famous the prof, the better the lesson? (Think about doing a paper on this for extra credit.)

Dana Milbank, Washington Post, comedy in news reporting: C minus

Weak concept, Dana. You set out to teach us how to be funny by showing examples of yourself doing all the wrong things and not being funny. The trouble is, that isn’t funny. It’s predictable, lame and increasingly tedious. Also, it doesn’t teach us anything about comedy in news reporting. And speaking of comedy in news reporting, isn’t that a course that should be saved for the YouTube graduate school of journalism? Comedy is advanced material, dangerous in the wrong hands and not for everyone.