The Worst Webcam Background I’ve Ever Seen
Lee Feinstein, the former U.S. ambassador to Poland, has an impressive résumé. He served under two presidents (Clinton and Obama), worked at the Departments of Defense and State, and is a prolific author. Today, he serves as the Senior Transatlantic Fellow for the German Marshall Fund.
But when I saw this tweet on Sunday night, I knew I’d want to write about an interview he recently gave.
The tweeter, @JudgeElihu, snapped a photo from Mr. Feinstein’s television appearance, which aired on BBC World. Although I couldn’t find the video from this appearance, I did find video of another interview Feinstein conducted from the same room in March.
The room from which Mr. Feinstein conducted the interview was a mess: a nightstand door was open, a bed was directly behind him, and small, barely detectable items were perched on the dresser.
It’s difficult to imagine that viewers weren’t distracted by the unusually messy background, which may have prevented some viewers from hearing the points he was trying to make (even worse, their overall impression of Mr. Feinstein could have been unnecessarily diminished).
This post is not intended to come across as “catty,” so here are some practical suggestions.
First, Mr. Feinstein could find a better background in that room—even a bare wall would be preferable—or use a different angle. A minimally decorated wall with a framed print, a lamp, and/or a large house plant can also look good on camera; just be sure that none of those objects appear to be poking out from your head.
Second, sitting closer to a wall would have resulted in a tighter shot with fewer distractions. He could position the desk a few feet away from a clean wall and sit with his back to the wall.
The video of his March interview (photo below) shows that Mr. Feinstein angled the camera higher, which is at least a little better (although he should, at a minimum, lift the laptop up to eye level using a platform to prevent him from always looking down).
Third, Mr. Feinstein can use a portable backdrop. As blogger Ken Molay wrote in a recent guest post on the topic, “It is quicker and easier to set up a neutral backdrop behind you than to clean and arrange your bookshelves and office space. It also lets you broadcast from any location without worrying about what is behind you. One option is the CVI Studio portable backdrop.”
As an example, here’s the backdrop viewers see when they watch one of my videos:
But it would look awful if I used a wider framing of the same background:
What do you think? Did the poor background detract from Mr. Feinstein’s credibility? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Share this article
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
OMG what a messy room! It’s hard to believe that someone of his seniority and obvious “smarts” couldn’t figure out that this would make him look unprofessional. Your comments aren’t the least bit “catty.” More like common sense!
At a minimum, I think that he implied a certain amount of unprofessionalism. Probably a great deal of unprofessionalism. He has made himself look like a teenager; I half expected him at one point to be interrupted by some woman yelling off screen, only to have him reply, “Mom! Not now–I’m talking to the BBC!” Your advice was spot on, although honestly I would have responded better to an office in the background–even a cubicle–better than a bedroom. Some kind of background that implies he is working, not sitting in his spare bedroom a few minutes before running the kids to soccer practice.
More webcams need to have a creamy, shallow depth of field control. Then any bad background can look “artistic” and aesthetically-pleasing because it’s blurred. Also gives priority to the foreground subject. Humans associate “the look” with high-end motion pictures, so it also lends a credence of quality.
I’m not surprised, he probably just didn’t think anything of it and was more interested in what he was going to say than how it looked. I’m not saying it’s right, just saying I think it was an oversight. That said, once is an oversight – but somebody should have said something about it after the first time, and fixed it by the second time.
I’ve seen photographs by self-proclaimed photographers with some glaring issues, such as being able to see down a woman’s shirt because of her body angle and the camera angle (not intentional, I assure you). I suspect the photographer was obsessed with the lighting or some other factor, and never considered the image as a whole. This is probably the same thing – too much focus on one thing.
Your headline of Worst Webcam Background Ever is spot-on.
I must say he needs a Webaround!!!! A very simple solution. Gives a look @
Thewebaround.com
Great post and a valuable lesson for spokespeople, Brad. On CNN and other network TV, you still see professional pundits, pollsters and political commentators with similar issues calling in from somewhere with WebCam, laptop cameras or on Skype. The biggest issue is poor lighting which is easily corrected. It’s acceptable if you’re a war correspondent calling from Aleppo or Mosul but not in everyday run-of-the-mill interviews. It’s not just a distraction and an opportunity lost, it’s bad for your reputation.