The Value of Virtual Reality for News
Virtual reality is a pretty new concept. To me, at least. Virtual reality has been around for seemingly ages. While it’s the talk of the tech world now, it wasn’t always so: VR was once only thought of as futuristic headsets, out-of-this-world graphics and simulation video games. It’s easy to say, virtual reality has come a very long way in a very short time. One look around and you’ll realize virtual reality is a lot closer than you think, and even in the palm of your hand.
Nowadays, when one thinks of virtual reality, something much simpler than intricate video games comes to mind. It’s simply about storytelling. And that’s what many journalists and newsrooms aim to do — to utilize the medium as a storytelling aspect. But for many, this is problematic, and the ethics of journalism are called upon when using virtual reality to tell a story. How far can we use this technology before the drive for empathy blurs the lines of bias. Are we telling viewers what to think with the way the story is filmed, laid out and delivered? Are we taking away their rights to their own opinion?
My first experience with interactive and virtual reality came from a Taylor Swift music video extra. She released a fully interactive video that allowed you to follow her room through room, as if you were a part of the music video, and to manipulate the video a full 360 degrees — looking up, down, left, and right, and moving through at your own pace. This really intrigued me. So when class began this semester, and we downloaded the VRSE app, I was in for a surprise.
With the technology available at the touch of a button on your smartphone, all you really need to access virtual reality is a cardboard headset. With the introduction of Google Cardboard, cardboard headsets are available for as little as $10.
With virtual reality being so easily accessible now, it’s not as taboo or uncommon in everyday situations — and more and more companies, newsrooms and organizations are adapting their own content to fit into this new technology.
Virtual reality can be used for practically anything. In the VRSE app, we watched a documentary about Syrian refugees called Clouds Over Sidra, and many journalists are utilizing this technology to tell their stories in a different way — giving a new meaning to reporting, and being able to report high-profile events like what’s happening in Syria in all new ways. But this isn’t just used to tell stories: it’s used to transport viewers to a place they may not be able to go. Using another app, Jaunt, I was able to view a New York Fashion Week runway, a behind-the-scenes look at a cover shoot for a popular magazine, and a huge rap concert, giving a whole new meaning to moving an audience with your story.
Even CNN is giving it a try with their upcoming coverage of the Democratic presidential candidates debate on October 13. While their coverage requires more expensive technology than the cardboard alternative (the Samsung Gear VR headset), the concept is interesting to see how it pans out. It puts you in the place of an audience member, and many are quick to critique that it’s not exactly that exciting: it’s something that you can watch on TV, and being put in a VR setting doesn’t really add to the experience. For some laughs, check out Stephen Colbert’s monologue about his experience with the Samsung Gear VR headset.
But the question remains: how far is too far with virtual reality? When the topic of recreating the Boston Marathon bombing with a VR headset came up in class last week, everyone was quick to shut the idea down. For me, the concept is unnecessary and quite frankly, unethical. The “reporting” (if you can even call it that — this would be a documentary, at best) would be biased — leading the viewers eyes towards the location of the bombers, and encouraging them to follow the footsteps of the dreaded duo that caused so much havoc on our nation. Is this even accurate coverage, or are we just rehashing gruesome details of an unfortunate act for absolutely no reason? What benefit would re-creating the event have? Besides sensationalization and profiting from the shock factor, I can’t see how this can even be considered journalism, let alone ethical. For me, this is where I tap out.
Yes, while it makes for interesting coverage, allowing viewers to transport to faraway lands and experience situations they likely never would, or to keep themselves updated on situations at hand like Syrian refugees, virtual reality is a very costly and time-consuming production. A simple question would be: is it even worth it?
