Nooo, Facebook Live videos are not "the answer" for a struggling newspaper

The publisher at my former newspaper, who downsized me, then cut to a weekly, then downsized the sports editor after winter sports were over because baseball and softball aren't a big deal, has some "interesting" ideas.

Among the interesting dumb in my opinion ideas? His lusting for Facebook Live videos. He shot one nearly 20 minutes of himself walking through a house the day after it was gutted by fire. Not sure how much of that is a general lust for Facebook Live videos, and how much is a pontificating ego.)

Then, to top that, about two months later, he shot another one, of a fatal bus crash. On the scene. Before all families — the injured as well as the one fatality — had been notified, from what I heard.

And, it got a lot of negative comments on Facebook.

First, 10 minutes is too long for ANY video of that nature.

I'm not sure that Fountain was a vulture for doing a 10-minute vid about a bus crash, as some called him — and if he was, then the 325 people and counting who shared it are vultures, too.

But, I do think he's wrongly enamored of the idea that Facebook in general, and Facebook Live videos in particular, are an important part of journalism. Even if we get guaranteed income, people still have to follow YOU, not Facebook.

Had I thought a video were warranted (which is itself dubious), I would have shot one with my DSLR, non-live, and done some editing. Yes, Fountain did lower his cam at times to avoid people, but he didn't always.

I think he's also enamored of the idea of being a videographer.

This gets back to the "wrongly enamored."

TV news doesn't run 10-minute videos. People don't normally sit through them unless they either have a loved one potentially involved with a situation like that — in which case I do question disturbing them — or unless they're vultures, IMO.