POYi - News Story - Multimedia

Usually, I can get behind the judges choice for First Place in a category, even if I like something better. But with this category, the News Story (Multimedia), I just don't get it.

The category calls for: a multimedia story or essay based on coverage of general news or breaking news. This category will recognize outstanding multimedia reporting utilizing fresh material. Each entry should be a
single news story or essay of about four minutes in length.

I just don't get it. Why did this piece win First Place in the category?

I realize that I'm partial to the story that was awarded Second Place, but I just don't get it. It's like everything that I've seen at POYi and CPOY in the last 3 years was thrown out when awarding the winner.

1. The story starts out with introducing Stamper. How many times have previous judges railed on that? Yes, it wasn't him introducing himself, but the narrator did that for him. Within the first 5 seconds. Named him right off the bat. Aren't we supposed to be slicker than that?
2. I really hated having the story narrated, with all of its flourishy language. Maybe if I was in a better mood, I might not be so grouchy about it, but I don't think so. Every time I think about this story it bugs me. I want the story and the ambient and the images to give the drama, not someone describing it for me. The narrator seemed to have nothing to do with the story, other than being a nice emotional story teller. And all her extra flourishes and extra information didn't make me care about this guy or his situation. 
3. The story was all video. I thought this was a photography contest, not a video contest. Are we considering video as multimedia now? What's multi about it? How is it combining different content forms? Because it was narrated?
   

4. And unlike Film Camp, the winner of the Individual Video or Mixed Media Photo Story or Essay at CPOY 62, which was also all video, I tuned out after about the first minute. When I watched the judging of Film Camp, I totally was behind the judges when they awarded it First Place. One judge pointed out how the live action shots could have been photographic stills and that's one of the reasons it's stuck in my memory. Another reason is how it introduces the people by a mostly-voice over interview, not by naming them, but by letting them characterize themselves by what they said, their opinions. This photographer is capable of those photographic still-like video images - just check out "The Fogle Wedding" on the website. Lots and lots of stills brought to life, very well done (except for his likely illegal use of  "I Gotta Feeling" by the Black-Eyed Peas). Instead of that we got to see scenes with lots of dead space (sky) where I wanted to move the camera so I could see what was going on.
5. It annoys me that this [finger quote] important issue [end quote] trumped the other stories. Yes, tobacco farming is a dying industry in the South. Yes, this was telling that story in a new way. But how does that trump the war in Afghanistan? Are we so jaded that we don't see that conflict as intense or important news anymore? Because we've seen stories and video on it for the past 8.5 years? I don't recall that story being told in the way the Second Place winner told it. And the winning story didn't even really address that 'important issue,' just showed a contest that probably wasn't going to be around for very much longer because of "new fangled" machinery. 
6. What seemed like could have been the real story - that of this guy and his son and how his son wants to follow in his daddy's footsteps, but his daddy doesn't want to because it's a dying industry - that was like an side thought, because they were so focused on covering this guy cutting tobacco and defending his title.

Okay, you may have figured out that I am partial to the Second Place winner. I really liked the images, how they flowed together, how the audio enhanced what I saw. While the ambient played underneath the interviewees, it ebbed and flowed in volume, and it matched the events of the pictures. These men were talking of the experience, and I felt like I was a part of that experience. First time through, I didn't even realize they were doing the whole 'Ken Burns' effect with the images. I really felt that David Gilkey did a great job with the images; they portrayed what the soldiers were talking about. In the end, I felt like I was there with them and I was gaining insight into the mentality of the Marine at battle in Afghanistan.

The Third Place winner and the Award of Excellence winner also followed soldiers, but I didn't think that they pulled their story off to the caliber of the Second Place winner. The Third Place story, the ambient wasn't as subtle and there were several places where the images didn't seem to match what was happening in the audio. The Award of Excellence also used the Ken Burns effect, but this time I noticed it. I think they did it to increase the drama. I noticed, too, that some of the images were out of order. Also, the ambient was really jarring; it was obvious that it was on all the time and was distracting rather than enhancing for the story.

Overall, I feel disappointed in this category. Chipmunks everywhere!