Re: [videoblogging] INdTV

–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–