Home > All Posts > Individual Post
Post #1316

Re: [videoblogging] INdTV

By Shannon Noble | Shannon Noble <sn@...> | sh7nnon
September 29, 2004 | Post #1316 | Topic #1299

--B_3179258102_455187 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable On 9/28/04 10:49 PM, "Joshua Kinberg" <jkinberg@...> wrote: >> >I don'= t know if it's fair to judge them strictly on content yet. > > Fair assess= ment as there is no content yet. Only inference. But predictable > content.= > >> >their stuff is really gimmicky at this point, and I hope that will = >> >change once they get their footing. It will partly depend on the > > W= hy do you hope it will change? I would hope that it dies and goes away or >= rather that it looks so obviously insulting that it dries up and emulsifie= s. > Why start with a gimmick? snake oil. > >> >talent they recruit and ho= w much control/constraints they exert on the >> >content that those people = produce. Regardless, I think there is room >> >in this medium for all sorts= -- independent and corporate. > > I don=B9t understand the part about the= re being =B3room=B2. There=B9s room for > everything, correct? There=B9s ro= om for all sorts of goose stomping, there=B9s > always plenty of room. When= would there not be room? Its infinite. > >> >At this point, I'm more inte= rested in the implementation. Are they >> >doing something that makes video= blogging more accessible for media >> >creators/consumers? Whether its in t= erms of tools for publishing, >> >sharing, archiving, syndicating, searchin= g, etc.. How does it foster >> >this emerging community? > > What is meant= by =B3accessible=B2? Blogging is pretty accessible as it is for > those wi= th access to computers. Apart from that most of the people on this > planet= don=B9t have access to a telephone. The appearance is that of > co-optatio= n. The implementation is to co-opt. Nothing changes. > > .s > > --B_3179258102_455187 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [videoblogging] INdTV</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT= FACE=3D"Verdana">On 9/28/04 10:49 PM, "Joshua Kinberg" <jkinb= erg@...> wrote:<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana">&= gt;</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"New York"><TT>I don't know if it's fair to judge th= em strictly on content yet.<BR> <BR> Fair assessment as there is no content= yet. Only inference. But predictable content.<BR> <BR> >their stuff is = really gimmicky at this point, and I hope that will<BR> >change once the= y get their footing. It will partly depend on the<BR> <BR> Why do you hope = it will change? I would hope that it dies and goes away or rather that it l= ooks so obviously insulting that it dries up and emulsifies. Why start with= a gimmick? snake oil.<BR> <BR> >talent they recruit and how much contro= l/constraints they exert on the<BR> >content that those people produce. = Regardless, I think there is room<BR> >in this medium for all sorts -- i= ndependent and corporate.<BR> <BR> I don’t understand the part about = there being “room”. There’s room for everything, correct?= There’s room for all sorts of goose stomping, there’s always p= lenty of room. When would there not be room? Its infinite. <BR> <BR> >At= this point, I'm more interested in the implementation. Are they<BR> >do= ing something that makes videoblogging more accessible for media<BR> >cr= eators/consumers? Whether its in terms of tools for publishing,<BR> >sha= ring, archiving, syndicating, searching, etc.. How does it foster<BR> >t= his emerging community?<BR> <BR> What is meant by “accessible”?= Blogging is pretty accessible as it is for those with access to computers.= Apart from that most of the people on this planet don’t have access = to a telephone. The appearance is that of co-optation. The implementation i= s to co-opt. Nothing changes.<BR> <BR> .s<BR> <BR> <BR> </TT></FONT></BLOCK= QUOTE> </BODY> </HTML> --B_3179258102_455187--