Everyone's making video now.
The low hanging fruit of video journalism has been well and truly plucked.
And the chatter now is about how increasingly there's little to distinguish between various outifts' output.
Video done well is a powerful medium, otherwise the converse is the rewards don't square with the efforts.
So just as newspapers can define themselves by their distinctive voice, can video be targeted to deliver the same; go beyond the visual and info style associated with traditional television news.
Back in 1994, there was a huge fanfare when video journalism first burst on the scene in the UK.
And within a matter of weeks burgeoning VJs like me knew the whole point was to deliver something different than what television was offering.
Eleven years later the Hull Daily Mail were the first regional newspaper in the UK to take the video journalism plunge and they pretty much thought the same. They picked up awards for their innovation.
Since then many other outfits now have stripes that define them as video journalists. Problem is, according to some of the feedback, they're not getting the bang for their bucks
So is it time to take stock?
What's the difference between journalism produced with video and videojournalism?
if there is a difference, then can television really teach newspapers a thing or two about video journalism or is it a distinct craft?
And finally with a Video journalism training school cropping up on every street corner just how do you come to a considered judgement about what's on offer.
These are some of the things I'll be posting about and indeed addressing in my forum talk in Sweden.
I look forward to meeting and talking you.
blog on the Outernet