As i said over on Bobby’s site, good stuff all round but it does raise two points to me:

POINT ONE:
When even the Guardian has one man doing it all, the game’s really on the wall for decent, specialised journalism of the future isn’t it? After all, Bobby’s talented - and thank God given the workload - but would there be better results if there was a full team there? Bobby as writer, someone to do camera and someone to edit, perhaps even a second journalist?
After all, Bobby is a good writer, but is his writing going to be as good if he’s only getting an hour to craft his thoughts because he also has to do audio, video and editing and do them in a similar timeframe? Wouldn’t it be better if there was say four people all taking their time in their professionally trained areas to make an even better package?

I’m not knocking what’s been done, I just think that it’s always a question worth asking. Especially if we consider that while The Guardian may have standards of excellence, other publications may not be so exacting, but go ahead and do the same thing “because the Guardian did it”.

POINT TWO
Given that Bobby talks about having an idea on what to cut…is it better for people to do the job/interview/whatever and then fire out a quick cut with the barebones and then do a more comprehensive package to put out a few hours later as time allows or do people just want one wallop and that’s it?

I’m thinking along the PA/Reuters line of infodumping where they’ll put out quick points as they happen and then a bigger package later on? Will we see that happen with videoblogs and web news? Who knows?