The Hollywood Reporter has done a nice story on how quick-thinking CNN tech staff in the US helped the network out of an equipment crunch by using Skype to carry a video interview.

This isn't the first time a major network has done so, as the article also points out. But it could help open the rusty floodgates. We're all used to seeing journalists in khaki-colored vests filing reports from the world's distant hotspots over the videophone, and strangely, the choppy quality of these reports does add a layer of raw believability to what is being transmitted. (Similarly, AM broadcasts to me feel more "radio-like" than the squeaky clean FM signals or the kills-bugs-dead sterility of satellite radio)

However, at some point producers and viewers alike will begin to wonder if there's a better way to stretch the equipment budget. Skype video won't yet replace satellite-linked videophone reports from an Afghan mountaintop, but in more hospitable locations (with wireless or cable broadband) a laptop with Skype and a webcam will be economically more viable for skeleton crews on a tight budget. And aesthetically much more pleasing to the viewer.

Things get even better with High Quality Video, which requires Skype, an optimized Logitech webcam, a computer with a dual-core processor, and a reasonably fat internet connection. Nothing extraordinary for 2008, but it'll deliver up to 30 frames per second at 640x480 pixels. With proper lighting and micing, the experience isn't too far removed from regular TV. Little wonder, then, that broadcasters are experimenting with Skype.

I have a feeling that things won't end with CNN using Skype to interview a vacationing analyst in Maui. More exciting stuff is bound to happen on this front, that's for sure. If only content could keep pace with technological advances..