Buried at the end of the recent New York Times report on the relaunch of NPR’s website is an intriguing comment about video.

While the new site gives more prominence to text versions of stories, visitors are unlikely to find much video:

An experiment a year ago of adding more video to the site particularly irked local member stations, who did not want competition from video. Video is expensive, Ms. Schiller said, and she and Mr. Wilson are not convinced of its value. “We absolutely should not be heavily invested in video,” she said.

It is easy to understand that as an organisation with its roots in radio, video is a new way of story-telling for NPR.

But the decision not to add video seems to be based on the perceived threat to local radio stations, rather than the needs of the audience.

Clearly NPR is treading a fine line in its relationship with local partners, who are concerned that the new website makes it much more convenient for listeners to bypass local stations. Video may just have been too much of a threat.

But any decision on video should be based on an editorial judgment and an understanding of the needs of the audience.

Video need not be expensively.  TV is expensive, but online video can be produced for a fraction of the cost.  And this does not mean it is low quality or poor journalism.

Perhaps NPR will reconsider in the future?

Print PDF