Home > All Posts > Sort by Topic
Topic #1830

RocketBoomSucks

By Shannon Noble | Shannon Noble <sn@...> | sh7nnon
November 18, 2004 | Post #1830 | Topic #1830

Today's piece is the closest you've gotten to something viable and you are still way off the mark, a mimic of standard format TV, almost like "America's Best Video" mentality. Sorry Amanda, you are like bland turd thrown on the auspices of Nietzche's perspectivalism. Like he said in his rant about the "eternal return"....if you had to come back and do this over and over and over and over and over again....would you do it this way? You're lying if you said yes. .s P.S. You also need to make comments available, otherwise you miss the whole point. [View]



Re: RocketBoomSucks

By petertheman | "petertheman" <peter@...> | petertheman
November 19, 2004 | Post #1834 | Topic #1830

> you are like bland turd thrown on the auspices of Nietzche's perspectivalism. Um, did you just insult someone for videoblogging? Personal insults won't be accepted on this list. Consider yourself warned. Peter [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: RocketBoomSucks

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
November 19, 2004 | Post #1836 | Topic #1830

Why all the anger? I'm sorry, Shannon, but I think you are the one that's missing the point. Rocketboom may look like "television" to some, but I can assure you its very different -- in fact its a model that could rival television in the very near future. The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. --Josh On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:44:29 -0000, petertheman <peter@...> wrote: > > > > you are like bland turd thrown on the auspices of Nietzche's > perspectivalism. > > Um, did you just insult someone for videoblogging? Personal insults > won't be accepted on this list. Consider yourself warned. > > Peter > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: RocketBoomSucks

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
November 19, 2004 | Post #1837 | Topic #1830

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:06:09 -0500, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote: > Why all the anger? I can't comment on Shannon's anger. :o) > I'm sorry, Shannon, but I think you are the one that's missing the > point. Rocketboom may look like "television" to some, but I can assure > you its very different -- in fact its a model that could rival > television in the very near future. The whole is much greater than the > sum of its parts. But Rocketboom *is* television. It's tv created by independent personalities, and distributed via the internet instead of radio waves, but it *is* television. Just like podcasts are radio, radio made by independent personalities and distributed via the internet instead of radio waves, but still radio. You can give any media student as quick task of doing a genre analysis of a Rocketboom compared to for example a news broadcast. Rocketboom is television, there's no doubt about it. Not that it's a bad thing, but call a spade a spade. It's not a 'new media'. The difference is one of distribution - broadcasts are not bound in time, something public service stations here has been doing for a long time now - and of authorship affiliation (commercial, organizational versus independent individuals. But those differences are sociological ones. Nothing new has been created in regards of the media itself. Podcasts have brought nothing new to the radio media -... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: RocketBoomSucks

By Joshua Kinberg | Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> | joshkinberg
November 19, 2004 | Post #1838 | Topic #1830

I both agree and disagree with you, Andreas. Its precisely the fact that its a different distribution model that makes it different from (and in competition with) television. TV is simply a distribution method for video. But its a tightly controlled one that leaves little room for independently produced content. Rocketboom is independent -- there is no one telling us what we can and can't produce. Rocketboom uses the Internet as a distribution medium -- not TV, Satellite, or Cable. Rocketboom uses a weblog format for frequent publishing, archiving content, and to aid distribution (RSS). This *IS* different. Don't be blinded simply because it uses the convention of a "news" show. --Josh On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:26:06 +0100, Andreas Haugstrup <videoblog@...> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:06:09 -0500, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> > wrote: > > > Why all the anger? > > I can't comment on Shannon's anger. :o) > > > I'm sorry, Shannon, but I think you are the one that's missing the > > point. Rocketboom may look like "television" to some, but I can assure > > you its very different -- in fact its a model that could rival > > television in the very near future. The whole is much greater than the > > sum of its parts. > > But Rocketboom *is* television. It's tv created by independent > personalities, and distributed via the internet instead of radio... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: RocketBoomSucks

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
November 19, 2004 | Post #1840 | Topic #1830

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:04:58 -0500, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@...> wrote: > This *IS* different. Don't be blinded simply because it uses the > convention of a "news" show. We're talking past each other. I'm talking from a purely media perspective. Distribution is not something that has an impact of the media genre. I have already agreed that rocketboom *is* a new way of using tv, and it might have a big impact there (time will tell). However that's not what I'm talking about when I say that rocketboom is not a new media. From a media genre perspective there is nothing new. It is not a new media, it is old media distributed in a new way. - Andreas -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]



Re: RocketBoomSucks

By contactmica | "contactmica" <contactmica@...> | contactmica
November 19, 2004 | Post #1843 | Topic #1830

Exactly! This particular usage reminds me of how people in early photographs sat as if they were in a painted portrait or early television programs that were produced to look exactly like theatre (complete with cast taking a bow to the camera at the end). Personally, it doesn't interest me, I am more inspired by forms that push boundaries of content. However, it is an important part of the story. Many people will take to it for exactly the reasons I don't. The familiarity of it's style allows them to be comfortable with something they might otherwise find too confusing or weird. There is room and need for more of all of it, but good to make clarifications. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup" < videoblog@s...> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:04:58 -0500, Joshua Kinberg <jkinberg@g...> > wrote: > > > This *IS* different. Don't be blinded simply because it uses the > > convention of a "news" show. > > We're talking past each other. I'm talking from a purely media > perspective. Distribution is not something that has an impact of the media > genre. I have already agreed that rocketboom *is* a new way of using tv, > and it might have a big impact there (time will tell). However that's not > what I'm talking about when I say that rocketboom is not a new media. > > From a media genre perspective there is... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: RocketBoomSucks

By M. Sean Gilligan | "M. Sean Gilligan" <seanlist@...> | M_Sean_Gilligan
November 19, 2004 | Post #1846 | Topic #1830

> >Its precisely the fact that its a different distribution model that >makes it different from (and in competition with) television. TV is >simply a distribution method for video. But its a tightly controlled >one that leaves little room for independently produced content. The distribution mechanism (media) affects the message. TV "shows" are typically 20 or 40 minutes long (to fill 1/2 hour or 1 hour timeslots with commercials.) Rocketboom is very much like television, but is different in, at least two ways: 1) It recognizes that Internet/blog distribution calls for short "shows". 2) It is "independent" > >Rocketboom is independent -- there is no one telling us what we can >and can't produce. Rocketboom is independent, but what does "independent" really mean? Does it simply mean that you guys don't have corporate bosses, or does it mean more than that? Who tells Jeffrey Katzenberg what he can and can't produce? (My answer: his investors, his customers, "community standards", and government regulations.) Rocketboom has (or will have?) many of the same constraints. There are a lot of things that independent can mean: 1) No "corporate" bosses 2) No self-imposed restrictions by trying to attract a mass audience and/or make a profit 3) Willingness to risk the wrath of the regulators (which is less likely to be incurred with a smaller audience.) I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this... >Rocketboom uses the Internet as a distribution medium -- not TV,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Jay dedman | Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> | kinshasa2000
November 19, 2004 | Post #1848 | Topic #1830

>....if you had to come back and do this over > and over and over and over and over again....would you do it this way? > You're lying if you said yes. > P.S. You also need to make comments available, otherwise you miss the > whole point. Okay, so Shannon's post is making waves. yes, its unusually harsh for this group....and not very constructive. we try to support each other's work. but its also honest. and this is not new criticism for Andrew Barron who produces Rocketboom. a couple weeks ago we got togther to send Lucas Gonze to his new home in hawaii. Andrew and Josh were there and explained their new vlog that was about to be published. "each day an anchor will present a short news report of stuff going on online". Lucas said, This is bullshit. i never want to see another fucking anchor again in my life. he explained how he loves watching news on WebJay becasue its just straight news clips. everyone agreed. change things up while you can. Andrew said he understood and expected us all to tear it up. having now seen his vlog, i see that he has tried to switch it up a little. shooting in the street...some funny bits....a little less newsy. many of us are jumping into videoblogging, and evangelize its future, because we are bored with whats around us. Like Mica said, its about content. Let's... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Hey Rocketboom, please enable comments. (was Re: RocketBoomSucks )

By Steve Garfield | Steve Garfield <steve@...> | sgarfield
November 19, 2004 | Post #1850 | Topic #1830

On Nov 19, 2004, at 1:54 PM, M. Sean Gilligan wrote: > Rocketboom is very much like television, but is different in, at least > two ways: > 1) It recognizes that Internet/blog distribution calls for short > "shows". > 2) It is "independent" It's more like television and less like a blog since it has no comments enabled. Hey Rocketboom, please enable comments. --------- [ Web Sites ] --------- Steve Garfield Video Production http://stevegarfield.com Video Blog http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/ Weblog: Off On A Tangent http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/ Video Podcast http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videopodcast/ [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Re: RocketBoomSucks

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
November 19, 2004 | Post #1851 | Topic #1830

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:54:32 -0800, M. Sean Gilligan <seanlist@...> wrote: >> Its precisely the fact that its a different distribution model that >> makes it different from (and in competition with) television. TV is >> simply a distribution method for video. But its a tightly controlled >> one that leaves little room for independently produced content. > > The distribution mechanism (media) affects the message. TV "shows" are > typically 20 or 40 minutes long (to fill 1/2 hour or 1 hour timeslots > with commercials.) Rocketboom is very much like television, but is > different in, at least two ways: > 1) It recognizes that Internet/blog distribution calls for short "shows". > 2) It is "independent" Yeah, I knew I should've elaborated. When I said "tv" I should've said single linear audio-visual media. Short movies, feature films, news broadcasts, animal documentaries, music videos, rocketboom, most videos posted online so far, the playboy channel, superbowl commercials, your wedding video, the Zapruder film and America's funniest home videos are all the same media. They share the same basic language. That's what I mean when I say rocketboom is not a new media - it's old media distributed in a new way (and not all that new - Denmark's Radio and Danish TV-2 have been publishing streaming on-demand shows for a very long time). > This brings me back to one criticism/comment about RocketBoom. To me, > it has a... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
November 19, 2004 | Post #1856 | Topic #1830

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:42:25 -0500, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote: > Lucas said, This is bullshit. i never want to see another fucking > anchor again in my life. I call bullshit on that. The anchor serves an important part of news broadcasting. I realize that anchors on the US networks (at least the news I followed this summer) are different. They are more like funny personalities who joke around with each other and try to make you stay through the next commercial break. News broadcasting isn't like that over here. The anchor is there to instill trust in the news that is to be broadcast (like the reporter is there to convey emotions to the place of the report). The anchor also sets the context for the story - a role that is not to be underestimated. > he explained how he loves watching news on WebJay becasue its just > straight news clips. everyone agreed. change things up while you can. > Andrew said he understood and expected us all to tear it up. > having now seen his vlog, i see that he has tried to switch it up a > little. > shooting in the street...some funny bits....a little less newsy. I really like the first show - that straight news report from the street. It was a very well done news report (of course it's still just tv and that sucks and stuff. Yes,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Christopher Weagel | Christopher Weagel <humandog@...> | ronnalddd
November 19, 2004 | Post #1857 | Topic #1830

--Apple-Mail-1-185763362 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:42 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > so why dont more people use these cheap tools and publishing method > to go crazy? > lets show each other the stuff we live inside and out that's not in > the public mind. > maybe this doesnt happen becasue "visual creationing" is still a new > technique for most people. > > I don't know why it happens. Survival fears? Why any independent creators waste so much time trying to be like mainstream stuff is beyond me. I fully endorse Jay's idea: GO CRAZY. PUSH THIS SHIT AS FAR AS IT WILL GO. See how many people you can get to cheer you, how many people we can get to hate us. Chris --Apple-Mail-1-185763362 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:42 PM, Jay dedman wrote: <excerpt><fixed> so why dont more people use these cheap tools and publishing method to go crazy?</fixed> <fixed> lets show each other the stuff we live inside and out that's not in</fixed> <fixed> the public mind.</fixed> <fixed> maybe this doesnt happen becasue "visual creationing" is still a new</fixed> <fixed> technique for most people.</fixed> </excerpt> I don't know why it happens. Survival fears? Why any independent creators waste so much time trying to be like mainstream stuff is beyond me. I fully endorse Jay's idea: GO CRAZY. PUSH THIS SHIT AS FAR AS... [View]



Push the limits of Content and Delivery

By Michael Manoochehri | "Michael Manoochehri" <michael@...> | mr_dont2001
November 19, 2004 | Post #1858 | Topic #1830

Yes I am with Chris... We really need to push the boundaries of the media, both the type of content and the way it is distributed, and if people on this list are serious about changing mainstream media, we need to work on accessability and outreach as well. Why don't more people get involved? Lack of understanding of what a blog is, and distance from the computer culture that many of us vbloggers take for granted. Many people out there don't find problems with TV/mainstream video media. In Oakland, CA, not enough people have access to computers, much less access to a decent education. Which reminds me, are there any SF bay Area people who would like to talk to me about setting up a video blogging program for high school students at oakland tech? Also, I wanted to add to that RocketBoom Troll post: I don't care so much about the editing/stylistic aspects of what people post. I do care about my own access to content, and I care about giving people the means to push the content envelope. For every RocketBoom, there is another blog that looks like nothing you've ever seen. The main advantage to "blogging" versus other philosophies of media production is that the ease and spontaneity of distribution allows for every stylistic niche to potentially be filled. Ok, I am still working on my blog, I just turned on my comments, and this weekend: trackback,... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Alia K | Alia K <AliaK@...> | aliak00
November 19, 2004 | Post #1859 | Topic #1830

I checked out the rocketboom site and watched a couple of the videos, and thought they were ok, but there was nothing there to make me want to come back each day as the news was very similar to what I get via the maillists/newsfeeds I scan through anyway. I guess I prefer the more personalised or art-based sites. atm I'm still exploring some of the sites people have been mentioning on this list as I've been offline for a few weeks. I like to see the different techniques people use and how they express their creativity. I've taken a few short videos but haven't had a chance to edit/upload, so I shouldn't really comment until I've tried it myself I suppose. when you say you're going to do it full time do you mean to make a living out of it - is that a viable option atm? or do you mean you're comitted to making the shows each day rain or shine. and are you hoping to create a community site with repeat visitors and people who become part of the project or, are you happy for it to be a project you upload and go for the random visitors who not necessarily come back (or perhaps a bit of both?). great enthusiasm though, good luck with the project :) cheers Kath [View]



Re: [videoblogging] Repeat or Random visitors

By Steve Garfield | Steve Garfield <steve@...> | sgarfield
November 19, 2004 | Post #1860 | Topic #1830

I know you were asking the RocketBoom people this question but I'd like to answer. I think I'll get random visitors to my video blogs from Google, and links from other bloggers and/or websites. I think I'll get repeat viewers from people that subscribe to my feeds. People who subscribe to my RSS feed via Blogger or TypePad, will have to visit the blog to watch the video. Those that subscribe to my Feedburner RSS 2.0 feed (over at my Video Podcast blog http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videopodcast/) will find the video downloaded to their computer automatically. That is the coolest thing. At Bloggercon II, in one of the sessions, someone said that they would want to subscribe to a Steve Garfield TV channel. Back then you couldn't. Now you can. So after reading all the posts today, I'm thinking about what to produce that won't be the same old thing for my Video Podcast. I've got some ideas, and the one at the top of my mind right now is to keep it real. --Steve On Nov 19, 2004, at 6:08 PM, Alia K wrote: > do you mean you're comitted to making the > shows each day rain or shine. and are you hoping to create a community > site with repeat visitors and people who become part of the project > or, are you happy for it to be a project you upload and go for the > random visitors who... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Lucas Gonze | Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> | lucas_gonze
November 20, 2004 | Post #1865 | Topic #1830

> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:42:25 -0500, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> > wrote: >> Lucas said, This is bullshit. i never want to see another fucking >> anchor again in my life. On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Andreas Haugstrup wrote: > I call bullshit on that. The anchor serves an important part of news > broadcasting. I realize that anchors on the US networks (at least the news > I followed this summer) are different. They are more like funny > personalities who joke around with each other and try to make you stay > through the next commercial break. News broadcasting isn't like that over > here. The anchor is there to instill trust in the news that is to be > broadcast (like the reporter is there to convey emotions to the place of > the report). The anchor also sets the context for the story - a role that > is not to be underestimated. I don't mean to be telling other people what they must do. From my own perspective, though, having lived without anchors for a while I find them 99% useless. The one thing they do accomplish is to make it bearable to see a series of downer stories. They're acting as tools for setting the pacing a series of clips. But mainly the clips are their own pacing. Get it right and the flow of stories is brutally intense, in a whole... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
November 20, 2004 | Post #1869 | Topic #1830

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:05:08 -1000 (HST), Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote: > But mainly the clips are their own pacing. Get it right and the flow of > stories is brutally intense, in a whole nother league. Those morons with > the toupees and bleached teeth do nothing good. I think maybe a big part is the difference between the style of news broadcasts here and abroad. The Danish networks don't have the sadistic fascanation with live reports that the US news broadcasts seem to have [1]. The anchor is the most important journalist in Danish broadcasts because he or she not only sets the tone of the story, he also set the context and often does the entire speak as well. He's not a bleached teeth moron actor, but one of the best journalists in the field. [1] This summer I spent six weeks in southern Michigan. One day two cougars were spotted south of us - news because they usually don't go that far south, and because cougars eat babies and stuff. I was watching the news at 11pm and because the stupid network can't do a news story without a live reporter they had a reporter stand out by a farm were the cougars had been spotted... half a day earlier! You had a journalist stand in a spot that was very uninteresting because the animals had not been there in half a day. More it... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Christopher Weagel | Christopher Weagel <humandog@...> | ronnalddd
November 20, 2004 | Post #1872 | Topic #1830

--Apple-Mail-2-226763425 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Andreas I live in southeast michigan. Local TV news, which is generally ro= tten in USA is particularly dumb here in MI. I've always noticed that too= . As if placing a smiling idiot outside of the studio gives them some kind= of credibility. Chris On Nov 20, 2004, at 3:38 AM, Andreas Haugstrup w= rote: > [1] This summer I spent six weeks in southern Michigan. One day t= wo=A0 > cougars were spotted south of us - news because they usually don't= go > that=A0 > far south, and because cougars eat babies and stuff. I wa= s watching > the=A0 > news at 11pm and because the stupid network can't d= o a news story > without=A0 > a live reporter they had a reporter stand o= ut by a farm were the > cougars=A0 > had been spotted... half a day earli= er! You had a journalist stand in > a=A0 > spot that was very uninteresti= ng because the animals had not been > there in=A0 > half a day. More it w= as friggin' night so you couldn't see anything=A0 > anyway, and she had th= e nerve to stand there and point and say things > like=A0 > "this is were= the cougars were spotted earlier today". Worst damn tv > I=A0 > have eve= r seen. (That was a small personal rant against mindlessly >... [View]



Re: [videoblogging] RocketBoomSucks

By Andreas Haugstrup | "Andreas Haugstrup" <videoblog@...> | andreashaugstrup
November 20, 2004 | Post #1873 | Topic #1830

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:48:51 -0500, Christopher Weagel <humandog@...> wrote: > I live in southeast michigan. > Local TV news, which is generally rotten in USA is particularly dumb > here in MI. > > I've always noticed that too. As if placing a smiling idiot outside of > the studio gives them some kind of credibility. I'm glad to hear that, because damn... -- <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/&gt; Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. [View]