Television reporting: make every image answer a question
A strong video report needs evidence as well as pictures. Plan images around verifiable questions and keep the edit faithful to what happened.
Plan the claim before the shot list
Write the central assertion, who is affected and which facts still need checking. Bring a list of useful images, but let reality correct the plan. Obtain appropriate permissions and tell contributors how their words may be used. An arresting visual cannot establish cause by itself.
Record provenance in the field
Note the time, place, camera operator and relationship of each clip to the event. Capture room tone and verify names and roles on site. If a source alleges wrongdoing, seek records and a response from the named party. Do not edit separate moments into an action that never occurred.
Edit for understanding
Build the sequence around confirmed facts and attribute disputed claims. Check captions, labels, maps, figures and music rights. W3C advises planning accessibility early, including descriptions of essential visual information. Review the final export on a phone and once with audio muted.
Practice pathway
- Reporting questionRecord the decision and keep a version you can review.
- Fact checkRecord the decision and keep a version you can review.
- Picture planRecord the decision and keep a version you can review.
- Two-column scriptRecord the decision and keep a version you can review.
- Edit and contextRecord the decision and keep a version you can review.
- Checked captionsRecord the decision and keep a version you can review.
A piece with clear limits
Fictional ninety-second package: opening 15 s, contextual pictures 20 s, attributed testimony 20 s, document check 20 s, close 15 s. Pair each sentence with a relevant image in a two-column script. Label archive or illustrative footage when it does not show the reported moment.
Try it
Report a public event in two minutes. Deliver a source-and-date sheet for each claim, six contextualized shots, a voice script and captions checked by a second person.
Project deliverable
A reviewed piece, its source sheet and a note explaining what changed.
Download a working template
A pathway, worked example and six checks in an editable file. No account.
Download TXT ↓Review before publishing
Do not use illustrative footage that makes a person appear to be somewhere they were not.
Frequently asked questions
Can I enroll through this page?
The 2024–25 catalog informs today’s self-directed guides. No enrollment or accredited qualifications are offered.
What do I need to practise?
Start with this guide’s exercise and template. Use a document for sources and, for audio or video, a device that can record a test you can review. Choose material you have permission to use.
How do I review the result?
Report a public event in two minutes. Deliver a source-and-date sheet for each claim, six contextualized shots, a voice script and captions checked by a second person.
Sources and provenance
The example and pathway are new work; historical sources document the former topic, not a current offer.
A 60-second mobile report: connect each claim to evidence
Fictional exercise: a study centre wants to explain a change in its library’s opening hours. This is not a real news event or an interview we conducted. The task is a short piece with a checkable central claim and captions that leave the evidence visible.
- Ask one question: which hours change, and from when? Obtain the original notice, its date and its responsible issuer. A rumour is not confirmation.
- Plan four 15-second blocks: question, document, explanation and close. Record shot, sentence, source and permission for each. Exclude unnecessary names, identity cards and private screens.
- Capture readable evidence first. Check audio with headphones and focus in enlarged playback. Without interview permission, use your own explanation attributed to the document; do not manufacture a quotation.
- Edit the 60 seconds, review captions with sound off and keep the document date visible. Check that the conclusion stays within what the source establishes before exporting.
Diagram text: 0–15 s · question: Entrance shot; narration: “Are the library’s hours changing?”; 15–30 s · document: Invented notice: closing at 18:00 from Monday. Show date and issuer, not personal data.; 30–45 s · scope: Explain that the notice concerns this library; do not extend it to the whole centre.
| Field | Example or check |
|---|---|
| 0–15 s · question | Entrance shot; narration: “Are the library’s hours changing?” |
| 15–30 s · document | Invented notice: closing at 18:00 from Monday. Show date and issuer, not personal data. |
| 30–45 s · scope | Explain that the notice concerns this library; do not extend it to the whole centre. |
| 45–60 s · close | Where to check the notice; still unconfirmed: holiday opening. |
| Delivery check | Saved source, permissions, transcript, muted review and identified final file. |
If the notice changes during editing, recheck both narration and the on-screen text. Updating only the headline leaves a contradiction. Judge the exercise by traceability and clarity rather than effects. Supply a transcript that also identifies indispensable visual information.
Source: W3C: accessible media planning
One claim, one source and one publication state
Before editing a report, separate what you know from what needs confirmation. This fictional library ledger links each sentence to its evidence and to the pieces that would need correction; it describes neither an interview nor a real news event.
- Split the script into checkable claims. “The hours change” and “the change affects every branch” require different evidence.
- Keep the original notice with its date, issuer and scope. A screenshot without provenance does not confirm who made the decision.
- Give each sentence a state: confirmed for this scope, pending or excluded. A blank box is not permission to publish.
- When the source changes, locate narration, on-screen text, captions and description before exporting another version. Retain the correction and the notice that prompted it.
| Field | Example or check |
|---|---|
| Claim C1 | “This library will close at 18:00 from Monday.” Fictional notice N1 dated Friday; scope: one branch. State: publishable only within this example. |
| Claim C2 | “Every library will use these hours.” N1 does not establish this. State: pending; exclude from narration and on-screen text. |
| Source change N2 | The corrected notice says 18:30. Change narration, on-screen text, captions and description; remove the previous file from the delivery route. |
| Delivery check | C1 links to N2; C2 remains excluded. Check all four appearances of the time and open the exported video, not just the editing project. |
| Blank ledger | Claim ID __; exact wording __; source/date __; scope __; state __; owner __; dependent pieces __; delivered version __. |
An accessible source makes a claim checkable; it does not by itself make the entire report accurate. Captions belong in the correction workflow too.
Sources: W3C WAI — captions