VJs on Verizon Fios1 [Archive] - MediaLine's Open Line Forum

Chicago Dog

Mar 29th 2007, 05:23 PM

You know, I read that entire article, and all this sounds like nothing more than a clone of cable news channels. You know -- the guys on local cable that get hash marks?

Verizon FiOS TV subscribers in the Washington metro area will be able to tune to a new local television channel, FiOS1, a one-stop shop for local weather, traffic, news, sports and community features. FiOS1 is Verizon's first owned-and- operated television channel in the United States, and the company expects to launch similar channels in other markets this year.I don't see anything groundbreaking here. It's just another channel. Another television channel. I was led to believe this would be some groundbreaking, state-of-the-art, multi-device communications project?

FiOS1 will also develop a high school sports highlights show, currently airing only on the Internet, for the TV screen.Now, wait a second. According to Mikey, shouldn't that be the other way around? Shouldn't viewers be flocking to their computer monitors for fast-paced, breaking high school sports coverage?

"Limbo Local" - a cross-platform auction and sweepstakes game offering FiOS1 viewers the chance to win cool prizes every week. Viewers can use their mobile phones to text-message their bids, or they can bid by computer.Now that certainly doesn't sound very innovative! Viewers actually have to bid on prizes? Why not just go to eBay and be done with it? At least you'll find what you're looking for.

My Nintendo Wii can do more than this new Verizon channel, and it's definitely more entertaining.

By the way, Pratfall, that image is awesome.

[ March 29, 2007, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Chicago Dog ]

jama

Mar 30th 2007, 03:45 AM

I think the "groundbreaking" part is the fact that it's television delivered over the Internet instead of satellite or cable. I think you'll see that the content will pretty much remain the same.

TV Dad

Mar 30th 2007, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by workin for the man:
Can you call someone with no journalism background what so ever, a journalist as in Citizen Journalist?
How can someone with no journalism background accurately portray a story for a program that is designated as "news", even if it is hyper local news?
Is it misleading calling a program a news show, that has no journalistic value, or general newsworthyness?
Why wouldn't they be considered journalists? Once they begin to deliver a news product, they become journalists. IMO, it's kinda like becoming an actor. Once you step foot on stage, you're an actor. You may be a really BAD actor, but you're an actor, just the same.

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 05:49 AM

JK Rowling... you know her...
'Citizen' writer.
Not 'professional'.
Just an unemployed 38-year old single mom on welfare who never wrote a thing before.
Citizen writer.....

jama

Mar 30th 2007, 05:52 AM

I am a citizen proctologist. Anyone need a checkup?

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 06:42 AM

When was the last time you found a cancerous tumor with your camera?

jama

Mar 30th 2007, 07:32 AM

When was the last time you wrote a book with your camera?

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 07:42 AM

Do it all the time. They're called documentaries. Making television is not surgery. It is a creative craft. We WANT it open to everyone. Like painting or writing or composing music - anyone should be able to try. That is where greatness comes from.

jama

Mar 30th 2007, 07:46 AM

Harry Potter is a book, not a documentary. I was referring to your citizen writer comparison.

If you want to play along those lines, cameras are used by proctologists too.

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 07:58 AM

Look. Making things for TV or Internet is a creative endeavour. Surgery is not. In the creative world, we want to open up the possibilities to as many people as possible. Like writing. Sure, most of them will produce junk. That is OK, because occasionally you get genius - and the only price you pay for junk is... well, junk on Youtube or crappy manuscripts in the trash bin. If you let everyone try, every once in a while you get Shakespeare or Harry Potter or Picasso or Cartier Bresson. We don't have a Shakespeare or a Picasso yet in video. Largely because we have closed off the ability to try.. because it was too expensive. It isn't now. Anyone can try and fail and try and fail.
You can't do that with surgery. You kill people. You can do it with writing. You can do it with painting. You can do it with music (look at Lenon McCartney at the age of 14). Now, you can do it with video. And good thing too.

jama

Mar 30th 2007, 08:11 AM

I can agree with your comments on creative outlets. However, it seems to me that most people do not get paid in a professional environment for doing these types of things. I understand your point that someone can be discovered by trying. But isn't that few and far between?

I can paint, write, do woodworking, landscape, design clothes, and play a guitar. However, I really doubt anyone would pay me in a professional environment to do any of those things.

I'm not trying to get on your case...just discussing.

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 08:21 AM

I understand and appreciate and enjoy the discourse. The world of print or painting or writing have developed methods whereby really good people get paid--- and get paid a lot (look at some artists or writers) when they do great work. The world of video has now to create those same kinds of mechanisms. Agents,for example. Like lit agents or art agents. There is always a demand for quality. But because the world of video and tv is just starting to get into this world, there is no infrastructure yet- but there will be. What we will find is that like in painting or photography or writing, there will be a settling out based on quality - the very best (and there will be some astonishing work), will be paid fortunes... the good.. the adequate.. and so on. For those who are really good at this, it will be a whole new world. For those who are just adequate, not much will change. For those who are incompetent, they will not find a market for their work.

The Mockingbird

Mar 30th 2007, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
[QB]Making television is not surgery. It is a creative craft.QB]Which is why you're using hackneyed phrases to prove it.

Bureau Chief

Mar 30th 2007, 01:18 PM

I would imagine that those high up on the food chain and those that spent a fortune getting that journalism degree are the ones most upset by this new VJ and citizen journalist concept. I guess I would be pissed too if I spent 4 years and $100,000 to get a degree that is suddenly fast becoming worthless except in the highest markets. Be jerks about it all you want but it will not change the fact that change is coming, get used to it. I had a very interesting discussion with the ND at one of Clevelands stations a couple of days ago. They corporate bigwigs can see that there is change in the wind and are investing heavily in it. Why cant we see it? Why are we fighting it? It will not change a thing. We dont own the broadcast companies.

[ March 30, 2007, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Bureau Chief ]

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 01:37 PM

It is surely coming, but marrying the technical skills to the j-skills and writing skills will only be of benefit. I have taught at both Columbia University's grad school of j and NYU's. In the last few years almost all my students had their own gear, could shoot and cut and were uploading stuff on their own all the time. They will become the great digital journalists of the next generation.

Spike

Mar 30th 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
It is surely coming, but marrying the technical skills to the j-skills and writing skills will only be of benefit.It'll benefit your wallet. That's about all, though.

Rosenblum

Mar 30th 2007, 02:24 PM

No. Yours.

NYC Street

Mar 30th 2007, 04:04 PM

Especially if you like making $8 per hour!

cameragod

Mar 30th 2007, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
JK Rowling... you know her...
'Citizen' writer.
Not 'professional'.
Just an unemployed 38-year old single mom on welfare who never wrote a thing before.
Citizen writer.....That is such BS. She got paid for Harry Potter right? Therefore she is a Professional writer by definition.
If a guy won the lottery in your street would that mean you are more likely to win as well? One lucky fluke doesn’t make a trend.

cameragod

Mar 31st 2007, 12:50 AM

Actually the J K Rolling story gets better. A bit of research and you will find that the “solo mother”, “beneficiary” and “Citizen Writer” story of Rolling’s past was in her own words a “journalistic fiction to create interest in the book.”
In fact she was still married, not on a benefit and was an English teacher with a degree in literature.
Not your average citizen writer after all.
I guess you better stop using her as an example then Michael because now you know it would be dishonest to continue doing so.

Rosenblum

Mar 31st 2007, 03:30 AM

You are, predictably, wrong.

"In December 1994, Rowling and her daughter moved to be near Rowling’s sister in Edinburgh, Scotland.[7] Unemployed and living on state benefits, she completed her first novel. She did her work in numerous different cafés (e.g. Nicolson's Cafe and Elephant House Café), whenever she could get Jessica to fall asleep.[7][14] There was a rumour that she wrote in local cafés to escape from her unheated flat, but in a 2001 BBC interview Rowling remarked, “I am not stupid enough to rent an unheated flat in Edinburgh in midwinter. It had heating.”[14]

[edit]
But you are wrong in a much deeper sense.\
People who get paid for good writing have not 'won a lottery', they are paid for talent. Get the difference? (probably not).

If you can take a video camera and produce talented work, you will be paid - a lot... unlike Timmy above who has a contract that guarantees him a salary no matter what kind of mediocre crap he puts on the screen...

I can understand why so many of you are so fearful of cameras and edits getting into so many hands...

Lots of competition is coming your way, and you are not used to it.. and don't want it.

Too bad.

As for JK Rowling, I am sticking with the story.

But if you don't like that, we can use Norman Mailer, who wrote Armies of the Night at the age of 19....

Every creative work in the world is the work of an amateur in the beginning, except television - which is why it is filled with such appalling mediocrity.

Chicago Dog

Mar 31st 2007, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
"In December 1994, Rowling and her daughter moved to be near Rowling’s sister in Edinburgh, Scotland.[7] Unemployed and living on state benefits, she completed her first novel. She did her work in numerous different cafés (e.g. Nicolson's Cafe and Elephant House Café), whenever she could get Jessica to fall asleep.[7][14] There was a rumour that she wrote in local cafés to escape from her unheated flat, but in a 2001 BBC interview Rowling remarked, “I am not stupid enough to rent an unheated flat in Edinburgh in midwinter. It had heating.”[14]You just used Wikipedia as a reliable source? That's hilarious. Obviously, you know nothing about Wikipedia and how the ability for users to edit it causes serious problems, admitted by the creator a year and a half ago (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem). It's a cop-out for resources, the lazy man's way to get facts. Going to Wikipedia hardly constitutes "a bit of research."

Anyway, the real reason for my post: when's the last time you shadowed a news crew out in the field?

This is the ninth attempt at getting an answer to a relatively simple question.

[ March 31, 2007, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Chicago Dog ]

Rosenblum

Mar 31st 2007, 08:18 AM

and this is the 15th time I have asked you to post a link to your video 'work'. You know, i don't even think you are a news photog at all.

Unlike you, here's a guy who is for real:

http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2007/02/a_day_in_the_li.html

[ March 31, 2007, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]

Chicago Dog

Mar 31st 2007, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
and this is the 15th time I have asked you to post a link to your video 'work'. You know, i don't even think you are a news photog at all.Not surprisingly, wether or not I'm a photog holds no real place in you claiming you can design a news outfit without even knowing who plays what role. How hilarious that you can't answer a simple, pretty straightforward question from someone you don't even believe is a photog.

I'm just trying to figure out how you can claim to know what happens in the field when you still think a "news crew" is made up of four to five people. That's an incredibly inaccurate assumption. See, Mike, I call it an "assumption" because I don't believe you've ever actually shadowed a news crew in the field.

Instead, I believe you're working with archaic information. You say the last job you held in a true, daily-turn newsroom was almost thirty years ago. I can only be led to believe your experience with crews in the field is equally as archaic.

So far, you've done nothing to prove me wrong.

When's the last time you shadowed a news crew in the field, Mike?

[ March 31, 2007, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Chicago Dog ]

Rosenblum

Mar 31st 2007, 08:32 AM

Most photogs are proud of their work and happy to show it. Not you. I don't even think you work in the news business.

Chicago Dog

Mar 31st 2007, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Most photogs are proud of their work and happy to show it. Not you. I don't even think you work in the news business.So, you've never shadowed a news crew in the field, Mike? Is that it?

How can you hope to be taken seriously about changing the way newsrooms work, yet never shadow a news crew? That's the thing you're trying to change, yet you don't even know how they work!

That's like a snake oil salesman selling snake oil without even trying the magical healing effects on himself first!

cameragod

Mar 31st 2007, 11:56 AM

Ok the solomum, benefit status seems to be dependant on the source but the English teacher and the degree in literature are both on her own website.
So a person who worked all her life with language wrote a book… color me impressed.

And since you like the Wikapedia so much here is a bit on Norman Mailer

Mailer was born to a Jewish family in Long Branch, New Jersey. He was brought up in Brooklyn, New York, graduated from Boys' High School and attended Harvard University in 1939, where he studied aeronautical engineering. He is a former member of the Harvard Advocate. At the university, he became interested in writing and published his first story when he was 18. Mailer was drafted into the Army in World War II and served in the South Pacific. In 1948, just before enrolling in the Sorbonne in Paris, he wrote a book that made him world-famous: The Naked and the Dead, based on his personal experiences during World War II. It was hailed by many as one of the best American novels to come out of the war years and named one of the "100 best novels" by the Modern Library. So a Harvard graduate wrote a book!!! Imagine my surprise.

Anyway you are wrong I meet amateur camera people all the time. They make doco’s. Some of them are quite good, most are not but they are all dependent on the fact that the person making it is not getting paid for their time. They can spend as long as they like re shooting and fixing in post because at the end of the day it’s not about the money.
That’s the real model you and employers want. No staff. Just hundreds of contributors that only get paid by the story. For them it’s a lovely dream but the reality is somewhat different.

[ March 31, 2007, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: cameragod ]

SEPhotog

Mar 31st 2007, 01:22 PM

FiOS1 will also develop a high school sports highlights show, currently airing only on the Internet, for the TV screen. Is this not the same kind of stuff being cut from local TV because nobody is watching?

Rosenblum

Mar 31st 2007, 02:47 PM

Yes, a 19-year old Harvard graduate sat down with a typerwriter and wrote a book, and so did a 38-year old single mother. One day, in the not too distant future, a 19-year old Harvard graduate and a 38 year old single mother, and thousands and thousands of other creative people will sit down with small video cameras and laptops and start to make a product that is both a personal vision and as powerful and successful as The Naked and the Dead or Harry Potter.

This is what is coming. And is a good thing. For you and many others, the moment is coming when they can either become content creators... or not. Because that is the future.

You may (or may not) want to read my blog on this www.rosenblumtv.wordpress.com (http://www.rosenblumtv.wordpress.com)

[ March 31, 2007, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]

cameragod

Mar 31st 2007, 03:59 PM

I read your blog and its completely warped view of how TV is made. None of it addresses the real problem which is how to get past the gatekeepers of TV other than be so cheap it doesn’t cost them anything to put you on air. There is nothing wrong with the way we make TV. The reason there is so much crap is that a very few people decide what gets commissioned and what doesn’t. They play safe and pander to the lowest common denominator.
Work out how to fix the commissioning and deliver issues before you mess with the part of the car that actually works.

cameragod

Mar 31st 2007, 07:08 PM

“Hey boss I got a Mr. Picasso on the line. Says he’s a daily turnaround Citizen Artist/Reporter.”

“What’s he got?

“Well a four hour exposé on the shape of the human eye. Called why only two eyes?”

“Anything more News like?”

“Footage of that Warehouse fire.”

“That was three weeks ago.”

“He says you can’t hurry art. Also it was his blue period so the fire looks green.”

“Is that it?”

“Well he did do a self titled piece about himself not being able to sell stories to hack journalists…it’s quit dark.”

“Grim?”

“No underexposed, you can’t really see anything but the subtitles.”

“Is it in a foreign language?”

“No just bad audio.”

“Seems better than what the VJ’s are giving us, how much will he sell it for?”

“He says you can’t put a price on art but if you give him a blank tape it’s yours.”

“Ok but give him a used one.”

Chicago Dog

Mar 31st 2007, 08:39 PM

Hey Mike: when's the last time you shadowed a crew in the field?

Since Mike is dodging my question over at b-roll.net, I thought I'd post the same question over here -- and an interesting accusation Mike pulled out of thin air.

Mike's never shadowed a field crew, yet he's perfectly comfortable in assuming what a field crew does. Take a read through his blog and you'll understand how incredibly arcaic his knowledge is on the subject.

For those of you who don't already know, Mike's last bona-fide job in the world of daily-turn local news was in 1979 -- nearly thirty years ago. Yet, he feels he's got the answer to all of the broadcast journalism woes? Hardly!

It turns out that's not the only thing Mike enjoys assuming.

These are three private messages sent to me by Mike through MediaLine's PM system. I discovered them about a month after they were actually sent:

Author: Rosenblum
Topic: "blackberry"
February 15th, 2007 10:09 AM

just for your own education (if that is possible) Blackberry is NOT, contrary to what you think, a flavor of SKOL. I still remember your stinking anti semitic comments from b-roll. Author: Rosenblum
Topic: "up yours"
February 17th, 2007 09:59 AM

get back to your trailer park you illiterate anti semite. Author: Rosenblum
Topic: "here"
February 23rd, 2007 05:32 AM

Jew Watch - Zionist Occupied Governments - United Kingdom - Jewish ... He is assisted by hisfriend Michael Rosenblum, who has been described by the ... As with the broadcasting media, the "British" film industryincludes a ...

www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-uk-media.html (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-uk-media.html) - 115k - Cached - Similar pagesI'm sure this will add some insight as to what goes on in Mike's head. I sent a response to Mike asking how he saw it fit to sling such wild accusations in my direction.

Surprise of surprises, he refuses to respond.

If this is the kind of guy you want telling you how to run your newsroom, be my guest. However, I think it speaks volumes about your managerial skills if you think putting a guy like this at the reins is a good idea.

[ March 31, 2007, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Chicago Dog ]

Rosenblum

Apr 1st 2007, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by cameragod:
“Hey boss I got a Mr. Picasso on the line. Says he’s a daily turnaround Citizen Artist/Reporter.”

“What’s he got?

“Well a four hour exposé on the shape of the human eye. Called why only two eyes?”

“Anything more News like?”

“Footage of that Warehouse fire.”

“That was three weeks ago.”

“He says you can’t hurry art. Also it was his blue period so the fire looks green.”

“Is that it?”

“Well he did do a self titled piece about himself not being able to sell stories to hack journalists…it’s quit dark.”

“Grim?”

“No underexposed, you can’t really see anything but the subtitles.”

“Is it in a foreign language?”

“No just bad audio.”

“Seems better than what the VJ’s are giving us, how much will he sell it for?”

“He says you can’t put a price on art but if you give him a blank tape it’s yours.”

“Ok but give him a used one.”I like this.
I posted it on my blog.
But I don't agree.

As the technology of television/video making goes from expensive to simple, we have an opportunity to change the nature of the business.

70-odd years ago, photojournalism was much like television new today - the gear was big, expensive, complex.

The invention of the leica - small, hand held, shot on a roll of plastic (!) and 35mm (so small) must have seemed to professional photographers the analog of the Panasonic P2. Not real. Not pro.

But it was - but it brought with it an entirely different kind of photojournalism.

In 1961 (and you see how long it took) that photojournalism as an art form, in its own right, was codified when the Museum of Modern Art in NY exhibited The Family of Man - a photo exhibition.

Today, we all think of photojournalism as a beautiful mixture of news and art. Life Magazine was probably the paragon of that form. Magnum certainly it today.

As video moves into the realm of the 'video leica', we can.. people like 'Cameragod', can, by embracing the new technology AND a new way of working with it - do for video what leicas did for photography - move it from a craft to an art. They are very different.

So Stephen, I want to offer you a challenge:

You are obviously very creative - and you have a great passion for your work.

Go get a small, hand held HDV camera. Don't put it on your shoulder. Use it like you would a Hasselblad.

Now, on your own, (you don't have to tell anyone), go use the camera to capture not what is happening, but instead, use it as an extension of your self to capture how you feel about what is happening. Do you see the difference?

If you got to a museum and see a great work of art, we don't say, 'hey Rembrandt, nicely lit'. We 'feel' a great deal of emotion and that comes from Rembrandt and how he translates that to oil and canvas. You can do the same with video. Try it.

Is it art? For sure. Is it journalism? I think it could be a much more powerful kind.

Rosenblum

Apr 1st 2007, 07:42 AM

Let me add one more thought to the above.

I have been enormously influenced by a book called W. Eugene Smith and the Art of the Photoessay.

Smith was, as you may know, a great photojournalist who worked for Life Magazine in its heyday. Smith it pretty well credited with inventing the 'photo essay' for life; that is, telling the story in pictures.

What makes Smith's book so compelling a read is that unlike most photo books, which just have the famous shots, this one accompanies each of the famous shots with the contact sheet from which it came.

One rarely if ever gets to see the contact sheets of great photographers, but they provide a printed record of how the photographer was thinking as he worked the story.

In the case of Smith, you will see all the well known work like Day in the Life of a Country Doctor or Spanish Village, but you can also see how Smith worked the room. He shot in sequences. Any good videographer will recognize his contact sheets right away - they are video. Very well shot video. But in stills.

Because Smith was so conscienscious about his shooting and discipline, he was able to craft almost entirely visual stories for Life. How often in TV news and journalism do the pictures come second.. or third... or even later - wallpaper over writing and narration, talking heads, stand ups.

Smith shows us a way to lead with images; to have images dominate - but also to use them to construct a linear story. We can do this in video. And certainly, Smith was a great journalist.

TV Dad

Apr 1st 2007, 08:44 AM

So...50 years later, how much better has photography gotten since Eugene Smith...or...Ernst Haas...or Henri Cartier-Bresson? With good cameras becoming more and more within the range of the average American (moreso than an HD camcorder, a good laptop, and Final Cut, I might add), has anyone emerged whose work has obviously eclipsed that of the photographers mentioned above? Or do 99.9% of all people taking pictures strive to simply come up to the standards those guys established?

Chicago Dog

Apr 1st 2007, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
I like this.
I posted it on my blog.
But I don't agree.The best part? Nobody's commenting in your journal. So, instead of editing your blog, you made up an account and added it as a comment.

How truly, truly sad.

Rosenblum

Apr 1st 2007, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by TV Dad:
So...50 years later, how much better has photography gotten since Eugene Smith...or...Ernst Haas...or Henri Cartier-Bresson? With good cameras becoming more and more within the range of the average American (moreso than an HD camcorder, a good laptop, and Final Cut, I might add), has anyone emerged whose work has obviously eclipsed that of the photographers mentioned above? Or do 99.9% of all people taking pictures strive to simply come up to the standards those guys established?I would say that, with the inevitable march of technology, television killed magazines such as Life or Look, and so the economic underpinnings of photojournalism.

Many of my best VJs, particularly in the early days, were drawn from the ranks of great photojournalists who suddenly found their careers at Time/Life drawing to a close. As television destroyed the economic base for Life, the fallout was the photogs.

Today, you will find some great VJs among PF Bentley or Dirck Halstead (both Time Mag White House photogs). PF teaches Videojournalism at Brooks and makes his own docs, Halstead founded Platypus. My very first VJ was, in fact, David Kennerly. Bill Gentile, a truly great VJ was a photog at Newsweek.

The economics are now right for a resurgence of the power of Magnum, but in video - but only if really talented people take up the cameras and start to use them for far more than just lighting and shooting a stand up.

2:30

Apr 1st 2007, 10:22 AM

To paraphrase the old line:

Technology doesn't write good stories. People do.

Rosenblum

Apr 1st 2007, 10:37 AM

I could not agree with you more, but technology empowers them to try. If pencils cost $40,000 you would not get a lot of writers. As camera costs drop, you will get a lot more people trying. The talented will surface.

Vermont Neighbor

Apr 1st 2007, 10:39 AM

Hi, everyone! I really enjoy this site along with everyone's ideas and comebacks and humor. I decided to finally log in and make it official.

The citizen journalism topic is an interesting idea. But Michael's general dissing of TV is pretty biased. It's also interesting that he views formal training as maybe not that important. Especially since he claims he taught j-classes at Columbia and NYU.

I posted this response over at his blog regarding the new venture with Verizon:

Michael, this is a good introduction to your telecom project. I'm not sure I support the idea that total freedom of thought and expression will lead to greatness. Or that the lack of formal training won't hinder the quality of the amateur shows. It will create volume and that's what's needed for the scope of the project. Constant incoming product; the donation of personal visions.

Briefcases filled with money and people eating bugs do qualify as clear examples of non-art. But Tv at its best is not that, it's much more and it's quite relevant.

Tv performed and cried and delivered as we watched together the morning's destruction on 9/11. Similarly, the comedies and dramas that survive the test of time represent the best of the medium. Writing, production values, acting and set design... it's impossible to paint a broad brushstroke and call the whole thing garbage. That's ridiculous.

Picasso was an artist because of his genius, not because he had the freedom to create. That said, because of the incredible blogs and ideas currently available, I anticipate the stories and visions that emerge as the channel evolves. The breakout stars will likely resemble J.K. Rowling: someone who's gifted and has likely spent much of their life serving The Muse.

Chicago Dog

Apr 1st 2007, 10:55 AM

Mike, are you going to clear the air of your accusations that I'm antisemetic, or are you going to continue to make yourself look like an ignorant jackass?

I've given you the opportunity in private, and I've given you the opportunity in public.

Whatever -- it's your image at stake here.

Vermont Neighbor

Apr 1st 2007, 11:07 AM

Chicago Dog: I also tried to reach Mike by email and directly on his blog. So far, my response has not been added.

It's ironic considering he's all for raw truth and unencumbered opinions! Clearly, his is a blog that doesn't include opposing viewpoints (at least so far).

Yet, that's what Rosenblum is railing against! The 'pack mentality' of committees, the layers of pre-approval and the censorship of dialogue and discussion. Hmm...

Rosenblum

Apr 1st 2007, 11:32 AM

Dear Vermont
I have already responded to you by email. I have not received your posting to my website, but rest assured when it comes in I will be happy to post it.
If it does not come in soon, please repost, as I have not gotten it.
As you can see by reading in, I am more than happy to post opposing points of view. I welcome them.

Chicago Dog

Apr 1st 2007, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Vermont Neighbor:
It's ironic considering he's all for raw truth and unencumbered opinions! Clearly, his is a blog that doesn't include opposing viewpoints (at least so far).Regardless of what Mike may play himself out to be in message boards or in his own horribly written and ideally ill-concieved blog, he's a businessman at heart.

You're one of many who won't get answers from Mike. He's infamous for a great many things: dodging questions, twisting fact to meet his own ends, horrible analogies, and incredibly misinformed opinions.

If you want a good read that clearly shows Mike in action, I suggest you read through this thread at B-Roll.net (http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8705), in which Mike claims a newspaper journalist working on a story about OMB/VJs never interviewed him:

Originally posted by Nathan Sound:
Mike, did you really say this?

Mr. Rosenblum would not disclose his consulting fee, beyond saying, "Messiahs don't come cheap." Originally posted by Michaelrosenblum:
No. It is full of misquotes and non quotes. I never say "local news sucks"... on the other hand, I always say "TV sucks".But, soon after Mike's claim to the contrary, Michael Stoll, the journalist who interviewed Rosenblum, showed up to contradict Rosenblum's claim:

Originally posted by Michael Stoll:
There are at least half a dozen witnesses who work at KRON who could verify that I talked with him. He and I met on the newsroom floor after I interviewed Chris Lee, the news director, for about half an hour in his office. Mr. Rosenblum then took me upstairs in the elevator for a 10-15 minute private conversation in an office he was using. I have the notes from that conversation transcribed on my computer, if anyone is interested in more quotes. After rolling through a couple of great colorful one-liners like "It's brainwashing" and "Messiahs don't come cheap," I told him to slow down so I could get more complex quotes verbatim, because he talks very fast.And the backpedaling began!

Originally posted by Michaelrosenblum:
Mea Culpa.
He did interview me.
I did not remember it.The resulting flurry of messages is hilarious. I highly suggest you go check it out.

Vermont Neighbor

Apr 1st 2007, 01:16 PM

So many angles on this topic. In fairness, Michael did respond quickly to my email.

The downside of this camera-for-every-man plan is the damage it will cause. The influence of hyper-local (neighborhood) gossip, coupled with a lack of training could lead to some mighty wild news stories. It's all scheduled for delivery over the Verizon system, which equals corporate support. This is clearly a business plan as Chi Dog mentioned, with select winners on the way but also many losers.

Anyway, no denying the power of the instant voice. Vloggers, bloggers and now citizen journalists.

Chicago Dog, thanks for the links because I find this whole thing pretty interesting. I'm going to read up and check in later.

cameragod

Apr 1st 2007, 02:14 PM

The thing is I’ve done the small camera news thing and it’s a bit like telling Picasso to paint whatever he likes but only if he uses his feet. The only feeling you will get is the frustration of being forced to use the wrong tool for the job.
Can I paint with my feet, you bet but why, why, why when I could be using my hands?

I’m freelance so I’ll use whatever tool the client wants.
I do a lot of music videos with small HD cameras. We are in control of the environment and the action and have the time to do another take to get it looking right.
I use little cameras fixed in cars for ride along shots. To get them to look right it can take long setup times.
But for news where the fastest guy on the draw is the one who wins I really hate having to sacrifice speed and quality for no real gain.
I say it again, you want to fix news then fix the part that’s broken not the part that works.

[ April 01, 2007, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: cameragod ]

2:30

Apr 1st 2007, 05:25 PM

Well, I don't much care which camera you use, or which format, or, really, who does what...as long as I get my package in time for its slot, and as long it looks good, and as long as it's right, and as long as it beats the crap out of the competition.

Somehow I don't see VJs doing that much. But maybe I'm just spoiled by working with professionals.

workin for the man

Apr 1st 2007, 08:32 PM

I think this is the point that I was trying to make before when I was asking the journalist questions ...

I feel like many of these stories that are going to get pumped out by the VJ's are just going to puff piece/featury PR crap for whoever they are doing the stories on.

I dont feel as if there will be any true news stories, and I know that is Rosenblum's point, that he wants to change news, but there are still stories out there that matter, and can make a difference in people's lives. With this drive towards VJdom and people driven stories you miss the essence of what local news should be about, and thats making a difference in people's lives.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic ...

Spike

Apr 1st 2007, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by workin for the man:
I dont feel as if there will be any true news stories, and I know that is Rosenblum's point, that he wants to change news, but there are still stories out there that matter, and can make a difference in people's lives. Rosenblum wants to change the aesthetic to match the limitations of his system instead of creating a system that can rise to the quality people demand. His VJs have a hard time doing real day-turn news, so he wants to redefine "news" so that it consists of only the stories the VJs can do reasonably well. Everything else is bad.

This is not an original tactic. During the 60s, French filmmakers were working with low budgets, cheaper 16mm cameras and inexperienced people. So they tried to redefine what a "good" film was. First they attacked "Hollywood" films as being stale and lacking in artistry. Then they said that truly artistic films were rougher, shot in black and white with a hand held camera to allow them freer expression. They even gave it a name: Nouvelle Vague, AKA the French New Wave.

They got a bit of attention, and a few films are still actually remembered from that movement. But the interesting thing is that as the New Wave filmmakers made money and could afford Hollywood techniques, they reverted back to them. It was nothing more than a marketing gimmick to make "bad" into "good" to be able to get noticed as filmmakers and sell tickets.

They weren't the last, either. A director named Lars Von Trier tried almost the exact same thing in the mid 90s, and he went so far as to make up silly rules and create a formal program to "certify" films as "Dogme 95," indicating that the filmmakers had abandoned traditional Hollywood techniques. But when they got money, the Dogme 95 filmmakers broke their own rules and shot with tripods and dollies. Von Trier himself shot an entire film on a sound stage, which is a blatant violation of his rules.

Likewise, Michael's new aesthetic is not one of quality, but of convenience. Not only does he want stories that fit the VJ's limitations, but he also wants the technical standards eased. For example, it's terribly bad photography to shoot from below, up into an interview's face. First, the up-the-nose shot is unflattering to the human face. Second, it's compositionally weak, since the background is usually the ceiling or the sky, where nothing much interesting is happening. Third, if it's the sky, it's technically a mistake, since the face will be underexposed against the bright background. Yet Michael wants to redefine these bad interviews as "good," because it's easier for a VJ to get a steady picture by holding the camera at hip level where the arms are more relaxed.

There are numerous quality issues with VJ stories that he tries to redefine. It won't work, though. No matter how hard he tries to say it looks good for a subject to stare directly into the lens during an interview, it will still suck.

[ April 01, 2007, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Spike ]

Rosenblum

Apr 2nd 2007, 05:01 AM

Let me repond to both the points raised above:

First, it is true that I want to change the nature of what we call 'local news', and that, I think, is no bad thing.

First, in the world of the Internet, the notion of 'breaking news at 6' is just nuts. As we learned with newspapers, the web is where you 'break' news, 24-hours a day, the 'show' is where you give the in depth analysis to the stuff that matters.

Now, what matters? What, in fact, is news?

Any ND will tell you that if you find a body in the trunk of a car, it leads (or ledes).

Think about it. Other than the poor bastard who wound up in the trunk, how many people's lives does that story really effect? How important is it? We are driven not by news, but by salaciousness. Not by important but by creepiness.

And we are surely not driven by ratings, contrary to popular opinion- because an honest look at the ratings for any local news operation will show that the vast majority (in some cities coming close to 90 percent) are watching NONE of the local news stations. The majority has already been lost. And why? Not because the anchor wore the wrong color jacket. Not because a reporter's hair was done in the wrong way. Because what is being reported has no relevance for them.

And this is not just local news. In the realm of network evening news, all three major nets today poll fewer viewers than did Cronkite alone. And the population of the US has appreciated a great deal since then.

So I rather think 'trying to change the nature of news' is not such a dumb thing to do.

In so far as bending the style to fit the technology, yes, of course, we do this all the time. That is why anchors sit ramrod straight and studios overlit interior spaces and weathermen, ironically, don't have windows. All that 'grammar' matches the technology of the 1950s when local tv news was cast in stone. It is, in fact, time for a change.

As for Spike's discourse on film noire, I personally thought A Man and A Woman was a great film, as was Dancer in the Dark (von Trier), but I could not say open platform and free press with one hand and mandate my own style with the other. I have my opinion, but if you want to schlep around a tripod and a 50 pound camera, please, be my guest. My only caveat is given a choice between the purchase of one $60,000 camera or 12 $5,000 cameras, I will always opt for the 12 to improve the choices and range of stories.

In so far as shooting from below - with the leica you can shoot from below, you can shoot from above, you can shoot from the side - that is the whole point of the kind of 'off the tripod' flexibility. I strongly urge you to take a look at the work of Sebastao Salgado. If that we could make tekevision that looked like this. And many shots are taken from below... when warranted.

Chicago Dog

Apr 2nd 2007, 06:23 AM

Mike, since you're out to change local news by rearranging what happens in the field, I'm sure you'd want some experience as to what actually happens in the field with a crew in order to claim you know what you're doing.

When did you get that experience? Have you ever had the experience of shadowing a daily-turn news crew in today's local news markets?

Come on, Mike. It's a simple question. You can do it.

cameragod

Apr 2nd 2007, 12:12 PM

Michael, radio news has all the immediate delivery, flexibility and one person out with their own recording equipment and all the other things you want for a VJ.
Why then is their news just like TV but without pictures?
Why when they have no field quality or speed restrictions on them at all has radio not adopted what you think of as a better news style?
If a body was found in a car you know it would lead on every radio station for every news break just as salacious as they could make it.
But the world is their oyster. They can have 30 journalists with cheap recording equipment scouring the city for feature story’s… but they don’t.
Why don’t they change?
Maybe nobody wants it but you?

Rosenblum

Apr 2nd 2007, 12:28 PM

I agree with you that radio is now where I expect television to be in the next decade, at least with respect to the technology: small, digital, light, and all reporters carry their own gear and cut their own work.

Where I don't agree is with what radio has done with this. You are, I think, spending too much time listening to those 1010WINS - you give us 22 minutes we'll give you the world stations. (I assume you have those in NZ).

Radio, in the light of TV, proved remarkably flexible. It became, in many ways the first interactive medium as it adapted call ins, 'world news roundup' and so on. It was always very flexible.

Today, I think if I am looking for high quality broadcast journalism I go immediately to radio. As I split my time between the US and the UK, I am more than happy to listen to either NPR or Radio4 on the BBC. Both are extraordinary sources of news and information.

BBC World Service, as I don't have to tell you, is second to none.

Is there still crappy local radio news? You bet. But for quality news and journalism? Give me radio over TV any day. Don't you think so?

cameragod

Apr 2nd 2007, 02:22 PM

Oh of course! I’m listing to the wrong radio stations, I knew it had to be my fault because you are never wrong. :rolleyes:
Actually as someone who attends a lot of news events I often wonder what alternative universe the radio people were reporting from. The inaccuracy of radio is breathtaking.
Most radio news is run by the “get it on first there will be time to get it right in a later bulletin” method.
Read a radio wire story and by the end of the day the corrections and notes are longer than the original story.

As for the BBC I’ll never forget covering a story about a 6 year old girl washed out to sea of an inflatable toy and the BBC DJ playing “The Tide is High” by Deborah Harry for her… yep real quality stuff alright.

Rosenblum

Apr 2nd 2007, 02:50 PM

Well, of course, you are listening to what you want to listen to. Radio's relatively inexpensive to make and broacast so there are lots of choices. What you pick is up to you. If you're listening to the wrong ones, certainly not my fault smile.gif

In so far as the BBC is concerned, World Service (which I think you must get even in NZ...even if only on SW) probably produces the best and most reliable news in the world.

I can't speak for local NZ radio news as I can't get it here in NY. At least not yet. But I do get Radio 4 every morning online. Try it.

cameragod

Apr 2nd 2007, 03:33 PM

Here you go... enjoy
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/home

cameragod

Apr 2nd 2007, 03:43 PM

I spend a lot of time in my car so when I’m not listening to my latest cd (Amy Winehouse at the moment) I listen to radio. Lots and lots of radio. The news on radio is just as, if not more superficial relying of unconfirmed phone calls, reporting speculation as fact, guilty of all the sins cast at TV only nobody seems to care that they do it. Why is it that everyone points at TV if they put a perceived foot wrong but ignores print and radio if they do the same thing?

The Mockingbird

Apr 2nd 2007, 05:10 PM

Citizen journalism clearly works well.

That's why "Investigative journalism"
yields 181 results on Youtube.

"Ass on Fire" yields 1,610.

Don't believe me? Check it yourself.

Run's House

Apr 2nd 2007, 06:14 PM

I got 1630 results for ass on fire...maybe its case sensitive...or the site has been bum rushed with some firey ass b-roll

The Mockingbird

Apr 2nd 2007, 07:15 PM

Those citizen journalists never rest, you know, which is why they are such a superior paradigm.

:D

Rosenblum

Apr 2nd 2007, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by cameragod:
I spend a lot of time in my car so when I’m not listening to my latest cd (Amy Winehouse at the moment) I listen to radio. Lots and lots of radio. The news on radio is just as, if not more superficial relying of unconfirmed phone calls, reporting speculation as fact, guilty of all the sins cast at TV only nobody seems to care that they do it. Why is it that everyone points at TV if they put a perceived foot wrong but ignores print and radio if they do the same thing?That for the link to radio NZ. Now I can know the traffic conditions in Christchurch at any time.

As for radio and newspapers getting cut more 'slack', I think this is true. I think the reason is that these media have been around for longer, and we are more used to them. Print, after all, has been around for 350 years and we have developed a kind of filter about it. When we go to a supermarket and see a tabloid with the screaming headline "500 Pound Boy Found On Mars" we don't say, "Jeez! Can you believe that?" or even take umbrage at the way print bends the truth. We don't care. We ignore it. We take it in stride. TV is relatively new, and for most of its existance, was so rarified that it was a kind of 'voice of God'. No more. But it will take time to get used to it.

As for all the junk on Youtube, well, yeah, that is what happens when you have a free press. You get what people really want. That's the price of freedom and a real democratization of media. I would imagine you guys would have been delighted to live in the Soviet Union where someone told you what the important stuff was, and your only job was to pay attention.

Chicago Dog

Apr 2nd 2007, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Run's House:
I got 1630 results for ass on fire...maybe its case sensitive...or the site has been bum rushed with some firey ass b-rollBum rushed! Pun intended?

The Mockingbird

Apr 3rd 2007, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cameragod:
I spend a lot of time in my car so when I’m not listening to my latest cd (Amy Winehouse at the moment) I listen to radio. Lots and lots of radio. The news on radio is just as, if not more superficial relying of unconfirmed phone calls, reporting speculation as fact, guilty of all the sins cast at TV only nobody seems to care that they do it. Why is it that everyone points at TV if they put a perceived foot wrong but ignores print and radio if they do the same thing?Thanks for the link to radio NZ. Now I can know the traffic conditions in Christchurch at any time.

As for radio and newspapers getting cut more 'slack', I think this is true. I think the reason is that these media have been around for longer, and we are more used to them. Print, after all, has been around for 350 years and we have developed a kind of filter about it. When we go to a supermarket and see a tabloid with the screaming headline "500 Pound Boy Found On Mars" we don't say, "Jeez! Can you believe that?" or even take umbrage at the way print bends the truth. We don't care. We ignore it. We take it in stride. TV is relatively new, and for most of its existance, was so rarified that it was a kind of 'voice of God'. No more. But it will take time to get used to it.

As for all the junk on Youtube, well, yeah, that is what happens when you have a free press. You get what people really want. That's the price of freedom and a real democratization of media. I would imagine you guys would have been delighted to live in the Soviet Union where someone told you what the important stuff was, and your only job was to pay attention.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]You have to hit the little keys with the letters on them if you want to actually reply to something, Rosenblum.