Does the Iowa Straw Poll mean anything?

While most of the local media is focused on the Butter Cow at the Iowa State Fair, the national press is counting down the days before the year's largest republican fundraiser.

You might think, judging by the media frenzy surrounding this early presidential contest, the GOP gathering at Hilton Coliseum is a critical badge to earn in order to become a US president; candidates who don't participate are hurting themselves.

Not so fast, pundit breath.

Only once in thirty years has the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames predicted a presidential election, when in August of 1999, George W. Bush walked away with seemingly all the honors: Iowa Straw Poll, Iowa caucuses, other US primaries and the general election itself.

John McCain, who eventually won his party's nod in '08, earned only a tenth-place showing at the money gala.

Needless to say, as a measuring stick, it has little meaning.  Only Bush 41 & 43 have eventually gone on to win the presidency after an Ames Straw Poll win -- and not necessarily in the same campaign year.

Even the early caucus and primary referendums don't indicate a winner in the general, so it makes you wonder what the fuss is all about.

National media coverage aside, the Iowa Straw Poll is a pointless exercise in the big campaign, so it's no wonder GOP frontrunners like Mitt Romney would choose to skip this particular dance.  Besides, Romney has already achieved what other candidates would hope to gain from the event, so why risk potential landmines (like this video and this issue) along the Iowa trail?

Audio killed the video

I'm not going to talk about the Buggles here, and how their video was the first ever to hit MTV.  So if you thought that's what this article was about, move along, slick!

It surprises people when I explain how audio may be more important than the quality of their video.  But it's painfully obvious when we sit together and watch a barely discernable presentation.

Watching a poorly lit video, or even one with harsh backlighting, is doable if the audio is outstanding.

Try it some time.  Watch a few tutorial videos where the presenter obviously has some sort of headset where he or she is practically spitting into the mic.  You hear every bad breath sound and can practically smell what was for lunch.  Or one where the presenter is talking from across the room.  The viewer turns up the volume only to hear a toilet flushing in the background.

The thing about video with horrible audio is that you can look away or become distracted from the visual cues, but the crappy noises permeate the air.

One super-easy fix is to treat your camcorder like a mic.  Hold it close -- within 2-3 feet from your mouth.  I know it sounds counter productive, but you have to stop treating your consumer-grade gear like it's top-of-the-line TV news gear.  You probably don't have a shotgun mic or lav mic, right?

Believe me, ENG gear takes a lot of practice to tune and adjust -- and it really is quite expensive to own and maintain.  Photojournalists have to work in some of the most challenging situations.  And that is the key.  If you don't present a challenge to your cheap gear, you'll have much better luck.  Try to create ideal situations for your video shoots, where audio is clear and decisive.

One step back on this topic: shaky video is hard to handle too, but we've covered that topic thoroughly in previous posts.