Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
> Anyway lets not forget that many journalists themselves have felt > under attack in recent years. If you arent embedded with the army in a > war zone then you may get killed, shocking numbers of non-embedded > journalists got killed in Iraq. Dan Rather came on UK telly a while > after 9/11 and talked about the climate that had been created, the > fear of saying the wrong thing lest a burning tyre end up around your > head. And in the UK it was not the politicians who lost jobs because > of Iraq War, but the head of the BBC and a tabloid newspaper editor. Let's be careful to not muddy the waters on this. This is not about journalists. I feel for them. They can't say a damn thing or they wind up like Ashleigh Banfield. Making this about personal Journalistic endeavors muddies the waters. Journalists are pawns. They are the wigs and pasty made-up faces that are the fronts for corporate media. They are victims as much as us. Hell, they are us, just schooled, driven and focused. > > Recently there was a report by a UK Ministry Of Defense thinktank, > looking at possible future threats. Flash Mobs, Citizen journalism, > and the decline of 'quality news' were a few of the things highlighted > as possible destabaliszing factors in the world of tomorrow. Do you have a link to this report? I'd love to see it. I believe that the citizen media danger is clear and present to our 'leaders'. I think this group of people right here, on this list, are very, very scary to the Establishment. Hudack, Verdi? Scary? You bet! Zooming in a bit... I wonder why they would think this? Can any of you imagine why? I think I know why. There is a stark difference between perception and reality, and citizen journalists bring a bit too much reality and too little perception to the table. The institutions, personalities and organizations running the show right now depend upon the predictable reactions of market based institutions. AMB's moral fortitude in refusing to air that footage and passing it off responsibly throws a monkey wrench into the whole operation. Socio-political calculations cannot be made on a cost benefit form, and that's a serious problem. > Well whatever happens, media institutions have proven themselves just > as incapable of maintaining credibility as many of the other > institutions & powerhouses of the world today. Still its unlikely that > any of these institutions have been credible to the whole populace at > any time, just certain classes/subcultures of society. For example its > questionable how much the BBC's 'lets be decent thinking, non-racist > people who appreciate art' aims have ever really deeply penetrated > some sections of the working class. And this is one of many reasons > that the world and opinions Im shown on UK TV rarely match what I find > out there when I talk to people going about their 'average lives'. This is a real problem for me, as I understand that the institution and the guiding principles that I advocate, distinctly American principles I believe, never really existed. All I want is the country I was taught about in High School. That shouldn't be too hard. Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Apr 20, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > Yeah the BBC point out occasionally that UK polls show journalists as > being less trusted than politicians. Not that I trust polls either ;) > > 90's UK TV satire of news, such as The Day Today and Brass Eye, helped > me to understand and come to terms with some of these issues, theres > loads of it on youtube if anybody is interested. > > It just keeps getting worse, the 'war on terror' has created a > thousand excuses for sensationalist, psychologically brutal, wall to > wall hype horror coverage. I grew up in the 80's UK where the BBC & > ITVs stuffy news reporting had yet to be influenced too much by the > USA news style, or the likes of Murdoch. I remember when we got > satellite and they showed the US program 'cops'. At the time I was > oblivious to the effects of such things, now I view them with great > suspicion. Not that I think the UK stuff pre-US influence was any less > potentially damaging, the tone and sombreness seemed more > 'appropriate' to me, but this is probably a cultural thing. I seem to > recall the Daily Show's Rob Courdry doing a good joy of this after the > London bombing, complaining about the English getting on with their > lives quite quietly, and how Americans like their grief in t-shirt > form. > > Anyway hardly a month goes by where there is not some equally > disturbing treatment of a story by the mass media. Those Guerilla > marketing LED cartoon character devices that were suspected of being > bombs, just look at the nature of the coverage of that. It was hardly > good for credibility. > > The (I assume USA-based) Society of Professional Journalists has a > code of ethics which includes this sectio
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
i agree. interesting and weary. balancing act, yes. tragic week either way. On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't think you were or are taking an extreme view for the sake of > agruement. I think you are presenting your perspective and as you > have had experience in the matter, I give your thoughts weight. I > may not agree with all your points or thoughts but I don't have to. > I can disagree and still respect your opinions, because they are well > thought out and borne from being there. You have a unique > perspective on this, being a former, still are I should say, reporter. > > This has been an interesting discussion, a weary one, but intersting > none the less. > > I was going to say a lot more but this space and this forum right now > is to limiting. I can only restate something I said at the very > begining, It's a balancing act, and it always will be. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > yes, i am taking an extreme view for sake of argument and of course > i would > > have been a horrible crime reporter had i been incapable of empathy. > > however, i firmly believe that reporters deliver information as it > happens > > and it would have been unjournalistic of them not to show the > public the > > information they had on cho, including parts of the tapes. > > > > On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > From Wikipedia > > > > > > Empathy (from the Greek åìðÜèåéá, "to make suffer") is commonly > > > defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly > > > experientially feel the emotion of another. As the states of mind, > > > beliefs, and desires of others are intertwined with their > emotions, > > > one with empathy for another may often be able to more effectively > > > define another's modes of thought and mood. Empathy is often > > > characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's > shoes", > > > or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within > > > oneself, a sort of emotional resonance. > > > > > > From the artile Irina posted > > > > > > Scott North, reporter and assistant city editor for The Herald ( > > > http://www.heraldnet.com/) (Everett, Wash.), adds: In the > > > race to get it first, don't forget the long view. It often helps > to > > > think > > > less about gathering fact and more about creating relationships. > Some > > > of the > > > most insightful stories won't be told for days, weeks, months or, > in > > > some > > > cases, years. > > > > > > Just thought it was interesting, while Scott may not be suggesting > > > empathy in the purest sense, it sounds like elements of it, > because > > > you can not build a relationship without having some sort of bond. > > > > > > but maybe that's just me. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://geekentertainment.tv > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
I didn't think you were or are taking an extreme view for the sake of agruement. I think you are presenting your perspective and as you have had experience in the matter, I give your thoughts weight. I may not agree with all your points or thoughts but I don't have to. I can disagree and still respect your opinions, because they are well thought out and borne from being there. You have a unique perspective on this, being a former, still are I should say, reporter. This has been an interesting discussion, a weary one, but intersting none the less. I was going to say a lot more but this space and this forum right now is to limiting. I can only restate something I said at the very begining, It's a balancing act, and it always will be. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yes, i am taking an extreme view for sake of argument and of course i would > have been a horrible crime reporter had i been incapable of empathy. > however, i firmly believe that reporters deliver information as it happens > and it would have been unjournalistic of them not to show the public the > information they had on cho, including parts of the tapes. > > On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From Wikipedia > > > > Empathy (from the Greek åìðÜèåéá, "to make suffer") is commonly > > defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly > > experientially feel the emotion of another. As the states of mind, > > beliefs, and desires of others are intertwined with their emotions, > > one with empathy for another may often be able to more effectively > > define another's modes of thought and mood. Empathy is often > > characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", > > or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within > > oneself, a sort of emotional resonance. > > > > From the artile Irina posted > > > > Scott North, reporter and assistant city editor for The Herald ( > > http://www.heraldnet.com/) (Everett, Wash.), adds: In the > > race to get it first, don't forget the long view. It often helps to > > think > > less about gathering fact and more about creating relationships. Some > > of the > > most insightful stories won't be told for days, weeks, months or, in > > some > > cases, years. > > > > Just thought it was interesting, while Scott may not be suggesting > > empathy in the purest sense, it sounds like elements of it, because > > you can not build a relationship without having some sort of bond. > > > > but maybe that's just me. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://geekentertainment.tv > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Can you pretty much guarauntee that nobodies brain at NBC was secretly spinning with excitement when they realised what theyd got? I assume a strange mix of excitement, horror, amd moral confusion, faces humans at times like those. I bet it was much the same with the Iraq torture photos, horriffic and sickening, yet a prize. Not everyone is that cynical, but just as there are some people that cynical onthe outside like me, criticizing, there will be some cynics in the media institutions in question. Also humans are very good at justifying their actions. This happens all the time, its clearly a natural part of being a concious being, though the ability to wrap uncomfortable truths into a safety blanket of justification, in order to stay sane and believe in oneself, probably happens mostly on a subconcious level, in order to be effective. Do we think many of the monsters of the 20th century thought of themselves as evil? More likely just like Mondays killer, they had their justifications which they may genuinely have believed, and the same will be so for the journalists in this case. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > like i said, having sat thru editorial meetings, i can pretty much guarantee > you the decision for NBC to release parts of those tapes > had nothing to do with money. the currency in editorial meetings is > information. i agree that there is ego involved in having > more information than your competition, but in this case NBC did nothing to > get the information so it was not really theirs to claim.
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's the question of what's "Journalistic" that's the big thing for > me. I think it's held up as this glorious unassailable thing - as if > it's a part of our countries' constitutions - but i think it's deeply > flawed and broken. > Accurate information is essential for a citizenry in a democracy. It is flawed, but to say it is deeply flawed is overstating in the opposite direction of being a glorious, unassailable thing. Journalism has developed with democracy and technology in the U.S. Every institution is flawed and that is the nature of life and reality. Institutions counter balance each other and adjust. To seek perfection is the biggest error. > This is a really, really big subject, but I have serious reservations > about the way that journalists use principles like Truth and > Objectivity to justify doing things that the majority of people find > unacceptable. I think it's very dangerous to the moral fabric of our > society. Morality and objectivity are not incompatible. And an argument for objectivity that is missing an ethical component is not complete objectivity. Objectivity includes the value of life which is an ethical domain. > > I think one of the potential benefits of citizen journalism is that > it can afford to be more humane. > > The overwhelming majority of people i've talked to and read in the > last couple of days have said how wrong and disgusting and > unnecessary and unnewsworthy and even potentially harmful it was to > release those tapes. > > They don't think it was the 'duty' of NBC to release them. They > think that that's bullshit politician-speak justification and pretext > to cover the fact that in the end, they prioritised financial gain > over morals. They couldn't afford to be Good. > Morals and financial gain aren't necessarily in conflict. It is not always a zero-sum game. -- Enric > "I'm just doing my job, regardless of morals and humanity," is not an > excuse that goes down terribly well with most people, post WW2. We > ALL have a responsibility to apply our moral judgement to everything > we do, and morally question what we are told to do by others. > > i don't know the figures in the States, but in this country the two > least respected professions (as found repeatedly in polls) are > journalists and politicians. even parking wardens get a better rating. > > i personally think that a lot of that has to do with a perception > that journalists leave their humanity and compassion at the door when > they go into work. > > And that although one might think that this would lead to a clear and > unbiased view of the world (as is touted), it actually exposes them > to moral corruption, because they're not allowed to use their moral > judgement, empathy, compassion, humanity in a corporate environment > that is motivated entirely by the quest for audience and profits. > > You said it's a hard lesson to learn. Isn't that because it's > unnatural, because it goes against the grain of what it means to be a > responsible compassionate human being? It's being learnt in the name > of some cold intellectual principles that are supposedly a crucial > part of our system of political checks-and-balances, even though your > employers ultimately have no principles. > > Added to which, journalists' employers are deep in bed financially > with those people they're supposedly there to protect us from. As > a journalist, you've got to be careful with that kind of stuff. It > exposes you to being happily played by your employers, exploiting > morally questionable stories with a human cost for financial gain, > and rationalizing it on the pretext that The Truth Must Always Out > For The Health Of Our Society. > > You only have to look at the wasteland of modern American news media > to think, "Hang On, I thought they said this was a great and noble > profession which is there to save us from the lies, corruption and > tyranny of our rulers. Was that a joke?" > > In this context, when i hear journalists using great principles to > justify doing morally questionable things like releasing those tapes > in the name of The Holy Truth and The Newsworthy Story, i often feel > that it devalues both the principles and the profession. > > And I hope that the arrival of more non-professionals and independent > people with local, personal agendas will inject a good dose of > humanity into our media. I think as many people will appreciate that > as the minority who are sucked into rolling news's addictive > storytelling and deferral of gratification soap opera style > journalism, masquerading as Telling It How It Is. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > On 20 Apr 2007, at 15:15, Irina wrote: > > h
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Wow! Preach it Rupert. You made me feel all warm... You are approaching Elbow-ian status in my eyes. ;-) Thanks for your compassion and clarity. We just need a couple million more of you... Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Apr 20, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Rupert wrote: > It's the question of what's "Journalistic" that's the big thing for > me. I think it's held up as this glorious unassailable thing - as if > it's a part of our countries' constitutions - but i think it's deeply > flawed and broken. > > This is a really, really big subject, but I have serious reservations > about the way that journalists use principles like Truth and > Objectivity to justify doing things that the majority of people find > unacceptable. I think it's very dangerous to the moral fabric of our > society. > > I think one of the potential benefits of citizen journalism is that > it can afford to be more humane. > > The overwhelming majority of people i've talked to and read in the > last couple of days have said how wrong and disgusting and > unnecessary and unnewsworthy and even potentially harmful it was to > release those tapes. > > They don't think it was the 'duty' of NBC to release them. They > think that that's bullshit politician-speak justification and pretext > to cover the fact that in the end, they prioritised financial gain > over morals. They couldn't afford to be Good. > > "I'm just doing my job, regardless of morals and humanity," is not an > excuse that goes down terribly well with most people, post WW2. We > ALL have a responsibility to apply our moral judgement to everything > we do, and morally question what we are told to do by others. > > i don't know the figures in the States, but in this country the two > least respected professions (as found repeatedly in polls) are > journalists and politicians. even parking wardens get a better rating. > > i personally think that a lot of that has to do with a perception > that journalists leave their humanity and compassion at the door when > they go into work. > > And that although one might think that this would lead to a clear and > unbiased view of the world (as is touted), it actually exposes them > to moral corruption, because they're not allowed to use their moral > judgement, empathy, compassion, humanity in a corporate environment > that is motivated entirely by the quest for audience and profits. > > You said it's a hard lesson to learn. Isn't that because it's > unnatural, because it goes against the grain of what it means to be a > responsible compassionate human being? It's being learnt in the name > of some cold intellectual principles that are supposedly a crucial > part of our system of political checks-and-balances, even though your > employers ultimately have no principles. > > Added to which, journalists' employers are deep in bed financially > with those people they're supposedly there to protect us from. As > a journalist, you've got to be careful with that kind of stuff. It > exposes you to being happily played by your employers, exploiting > morally questionable stories with a human cost for financial gain, > and rationalizing it on the pretext that The Truth Must Always Out > For The Health Of Our Society. > > You only have to look at the wasteland of modern American news media > to think, "Hang On, I thought they said this was a great and noble > profession which is there to save us from the lies, corruption and > tyranny of our rulers. Was that a joke?" > > In this context, when i hear journalists using great principles to > justify doing morally questionable things like releasing those tapes > in the name of The Holy Truth and The Newsworthy Story, i often feel > that it devalues both the principles and the profession. > > And I hope that the arrival of more non-professionals and independent > people with local, personal agendas will inject a good dose of > humanity into our media. I think as many people will appreciate that > as the minority who are sucked into rolling news's addictive > storytelling and deferral of gratification soap opera style > journalism, masquerading as Telling It How It Is. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > On 20 Apr 2007, at 15:15, Irina wrote: > > heath, > i agree with you that there are no answers and this is just a tragedy. > but again, it's not the reporters job to be empathic, just to report. > having worked in a newsroom for 5 years, this was a hard lesson for > me to > learn. > > On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and > going > > into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told > > without showing the videos? Probably
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
It's the question of what's "Journalistic" that's the big thing for me. I think it's held up as this glorious unassailable thing - as if it's a part of our countries' constitutions - but i think it's deeply flawed and broken. This is a really, really big subject, but I have serious reservations about the way that journalists use principles like Truth and Objectivity to justify doing things that the majority of people find unacceptable. I think it's very dangerous to the moral fabric of our society. I think one of the potential benefits of citizen journalism is that it can afford to be more humane. The overwhelming majority of people i've talked to and read in the last couple of days have said how wrong and disgusting and unnecessary and unnewsworthy and even potentially harmful it was to release those tapes. They don't think it was the 'duty' of NBC to release them. They think that that's bullshit politician-speak justification and pretext to cover the fact that in the end, they prioritised financial gain over morals. They couldn't afford to be Good. "I'm just doing my job, regardless of morals and humanity," is not an excuse that goes down terribly well with most people, post WW2. We ALL have a responsibility to apply our moral judgement to everything we do, and morally question what we are told to do by others. i don't know the figures in the States, but in this country the two least respected professions (as found repeatedly in polls) are journalists and politicians. even parking wardens get a better rating. i personally think that a lot of that has to do with a perception that journalists leave their humanity and compassion at the door when they go into work. And that although one might think that this would lead to a clear and unbiased view of the world (as is touted), it actually exposes them to moral corruption, because they're not allowed to use their moral judgement, empathy, compassion, humanity in a corporate environment that is motivated entirely by the quest for audience and profits. You said it's a hard lesson to learn. Isn't that because it's unnatural, because it goes against the grain of what it means to be a responsible compassionate human being? It's being learnt in the name of some cold intellectual principles that are supposedly a crucial part of our system of political checks-and-balances, even though your employers ultimately have no principles. Added to which, journalists' employers are deep in bed financially with those people they're supposedly there to protect us from. As a journalist, you've got to be careful with that kind of stuff. It exposes you to being happily played by your employers, exploiting morally questionable stories with a human cost for financial gain, and rationalizing it on the pretext that The Truth Must Always Out For The Health Of Our Society. You only have to look at the wasteland of modern American news media to think, "Hang On, I thought they said this was a great and noble profession which is there to save us from the lies, corruption and tyranny of our rulers. Was that a joke?" In this context, when i hear journalists using great principles to justify doing morally questionable things like releasing those tapes in the name of The Holy Truth and The Newsworthy Story, i often feel that it devalues both the principles and the profession. And I hope that the arrival of more non-professionals and independent people with local, personal agendas will inject a good dose of humanity into our media. I think as many people will appreciate that as the minority who are sucked into rolling news's addictive storytelling and deferral of gratification soap opera style journalism, masquerading as Telling It How It Is. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 20 Apr 2007, at 15:15, Irina wrote: heath, i agree with you that there are no answers and this is just a tragedy. but again, it's not the reporters job to be empathic, just to report. having worked in a newsroom for 5 years, this was a hard lesson for me to learn. On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and going > into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told > without showing the videos? Probably and while I agree that a > reporter's job is to report on the news, I personaly feel that the > job of the editor is to weigh and to look at all angles of a story > and then deciede what should be done. > > The problem always comes from is that you will always have people who > want to look for answers, to understand "why" something > happened. "Were there clues, could we have prevented this, what's > wrong with his parenets, why wasn't he stopped or jailed" and so on > and so on. > > The sad fact is MOST times there a
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
yes, i am taking an extreme view for sake of argument and of course i would have been a horrible crime reporter had i been incapable of empathy. however, i firmly believe that reporters deliver information as it happens and it would have been unjournalistic of them not to show the public the information they had on cho, including parts of the tapes. On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From Wikipedia > > Empathy (from the Greek åìðÜèåéá, "to make suffer") is commonly > defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly > experientially feel the emotion of another. As the states of mind, > beliefs, and desires of others are intertwined with their emotions, > one with empathy for another may often be able to more effectively > define another's modes of thought and mood. Empathy is often > characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", > or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within > oneself, a sort of emotional resonance. > > From the artile Irina posted > > Scott North, reporter and assistant city editor for The Herald ( > http://www.heraldnet.com/) (Everett, Wash.), adds: In the > race to get it first, don't forget the long view. It often helps to > think > less about gathering fact and more about creating relationships. Some > of the > most insightful stories won't be told for days, weeks, months or, in > some > cases, years. > > Just thought it was interesting, while Scott may not be suggesting > empathy in the purest sense, it sounds like elements of it, because > you can not build a relationship without having some sort of bond. > > but maybe that's just me. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
I don't know... What was gained by showing the footage? What did it really have to do with the story? I agree that reporters have no right to decide what is tasteful and proper, but they should not be adding salacious content to improve ratings either, which is exactly what happened with that orgy of psychopathic narcissism that ran wall to wall on the TV. The excuse "It gives us a look into why this happened." is totally bogus. The dude was a sociopathic misfit who wanted people to pay for his misfortune. We didn't need the breaking news freakshow to know that Gates was a looney and fucked up. We didn't need the nearly live freakshow with Dahmer. We didn't need the freakshow with OJ, although we got it. What's the difference between the 3 examples here? No more accountability to the public good, and slavish devotion to profit. We don't have a right to see his 'manifesto', and NBC did not have the obligation to publish. It was a choice - a choice that was guaranteed eyeballs. It was titillating pornography, designed to grab and hold eyeballs, not unlike what Rupert was saying in an earlier post. To take this a bit further... The idea that the media HAD to be allowed in the OJ Simpson trial was total bullshit too. We, as a people, have no right to watch criminal court cases on TV. If you want to follow the trial live, get your ass down to the courthouse and sit there and watch it. Of course there are things that must be televised to the nation, but those are things that have direct impact on our civil duties and civil rights. Putting the deepest, darkest hate filled diatribes of mass murdering sociopaths does not have an impact upon our cicil duties & civil rights, unless of course you are televising a Bush War Rally. I'm tired of the corporate media crying about their right to do this and that based upon the specious argument that 'the public needs to know'. They don't give a shit about the public knowing. Why can't they just be honest and say,"This is going to make us a boatload of money and give us enhanced market share. We're going to do this because it is good for us, and you can't stop it because our organization has all the rights (and more) of any US citizen." Oh, my that would be refreshing! And Heath, I did pose some solutions to our media problem, but it seems as if, like usual, those solutions don't exist. Why is it that people who demand solutions never seem to realize when they are being offered one? (not attacking you personally, Heath... It's just a trend I've had experience with.) I remember in the run up to our invasion of Afghanistan, which I was against, BTW, not because I am some peacenick pacifist, but because I didn't see how attacking a dirt poor country and installing the very people we created the 'Afghan Trap' to stop (and destroyed a country in the process) into positions of authority was not only a stupid idea, but it was morally wrong. The warmongers hammered over and over,"All they offer is naysaying. Where's the solution?" Well the solution was offered, ironically by the Taliban. They offered to give up Osama to an international tribunal. We shit on that idea because it was not an option. Getting the guy that allegedly masterminded the plot into the hands of a responsible international tribunal or court, simply was not a solution. Going to war, bombing civilians, further destroying an already impoverished country and whacking an extremely delicate regional situation was the only solution. An international police effort was not a solution. Taking up the Taliban on their offer was not a solution. Actually protecting our borders was not a solution. The only solution was war. Now one could make the argument that they were bad solutions; bad ideas, but that's not what happened. "The left was offering nothing but naysaying." I think this dovetails nicely, Irina's observations and yours, Heath, and that is disappointing. It's all the same stuff, over and over. Did the American people really need to see the twin towers falling a gazillion times? Of course the corporate media have the 'right' to show it, although I suppose one could argue that it was akin to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater... They have the right to do so because corporations enjoy the same rights as US citizens, although they have none of the responsibilities, and they can't die. Hell, we can't seem to find the strength as a people to stand up and dissolve them for something as horrible as killing thousands of people, destroying our food supply, poisoning our environment, and selling out our country. And that's what we're talking about here. Did we really need to see the OJ trial for months on end? If so, then don't we need to see things like the market based reprecussions of burning our food for fuel? What about our ever increasingly poisoned food supply? That might be something p
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
>From Wikipedia Empathy (from the Greek åìðÜèåéá, "to make suffer") is commonly defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly experientially feel the emotion of another. As the states of mind, beliefs, and desires of others are intertwined with their emotions, one with empathy for another may often be able to more effectively define another's modes of thought and mood. Empathy is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself, a sort of emotional resonance. >From the artile Irina posted Scott North, reporter and assistant city editor for The Herald ( http://www.heraldnet.com/) (Everett, Wash.), adds: In the race to get it first, don't forget the long view. It often helps to think less about gathering fact and more about creating relationships. Some of the most insightful stories won't be told for days, weeks, months or, in some cases, years. Just thought it was interesting, while Scott may not be suggesting empathy in the purest sense, it sounds like elements of it, because you can not build a relationship without having some sort of bond. but maybe that's just me. Heath http://batmangeek.com
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and going > into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told > without showing the videos? Probably and while I agree that a > reporter's job is to report on the news, I personaly feel that the > job of the editor is to weigh and to look at all angles of a story > and then deciede what should be done. I see that is correct. And there is a problem of a lack of editorial control and judgement in current mass media. (There's a significant discussion that can be had on that.) > > The problem always comes from is that you will always have people who > want to look for answers, to understand "why" something > happened. "Were there clues, could we have prevented this, what's > wrong with his parenets, why wasn't he stopped or jailed" and so on > and so on. > > The sad fact is MOST times there are NO answers. Life happens, (I am > not saying that to sound cold or unfeeling, if you have seen any of > my videos, you should know I am nothing like that) But what I mean > is that things will always happen that we do not understand. > Sometimes you can gain knowledge by digging or finding out > information but a lot of times it's just random. There is an answer to this and it is evil. Not evil in a mystical, spiritual or religious sense. But evil as the destruction of life. Cho could only kill so many people the rest he could only terrorize with images, text and video. Terrorize in controlling people through fear, thus limiting their choices and freedom. To disseminate centrally through mass media Cho's material is to further his intent to control and destroy life, to create evil. That is the answer I see to what he did and why it doesn't make sense to mass market Cho's media. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com > > Me, personaly I would not have run it. I would have found a > different way to tell this part of the story because even though I do > believe you have to report the news I would like to think we can > report the news and still have some remaing empathy. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina wrote: > > > > i have sat in many editorial news meetings deciding what is going > to go into > > a story. > > > > NBC did its job in showing parts of the video on the news. > > it's not the reporters job to decide what's tasteful or proper > > it's not their job to protect the public or the victims from > anything > > their only job is to tell the story as accurately and truthfully as > possible > > > > NBC was in its right to do this just as the families of the victims > are > > right to > > say how much they hate NBC for doing it and for refusing to go on > tv in > > protest. > > > > > > > > On 4/19/07, Heath wrote: > > > > > > I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) > > > > > > I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making > the > > > changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the > > > population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on > > > this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do > > > agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out > > > things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which > > > I know most if not all on this list do.we just have to get the > > > rest of the world to change as well ;-) > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > > > > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > > > > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > > > > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I > don't > > > > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- > > > stop. > > > > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- > > > internet > > > > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > > > > > > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll > > > shut up. > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > > > > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting > to > > > > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a > differance. > > > > > > > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples > angles, > > > > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, > it's > > > > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "missbhavens1969" > > > > wrote:
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > heath, > i agree with you that there are no answers and this is just a tragedy. > but again, it's not the reporters job to be empathic, just to report. > having worked in a newsroom for 5 years, this was a hard lesson for me to > learn. > The material goes through editorial before publication. It is the editors job to decide what is appropriate to print. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com > On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and going > > into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told > > without showing the videos? Probably and while I agree that a > > reporter's job is to report on the news, I personaly feel that the > > job of the editor is to weigh and to look at all angles of a story > > and then deciede what should be done. > > > > The problem always comes from is that you will always have people who > > want to look for answers, to understand "why" something > > happened. "Were there clues, could we have prevented this, what's > > wrong with his parenets, why wasn't he stopped or jailed" and so on > > and so on. > > > > The sad fact is MOST times there are NO answers. Life happens, (I am > > not saying that to sound cold or unfeeling, if you have seen any of > > my videos, you should know I am nothing like that) But what I mean > > is that things will always happen that we do not understand. > > Sometimes you can gain knowledge by digging or finding out > > information but a lot of times it's just random. > > > > Me, personaly I would not have run it. I would have found a > > different way to tell this part of the story because even though I do > > believe you have to report the news I would like to think we can > > report the news and still have some remaing empathy. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > > Irina wrote: > > > > > > i have sat in many editorial news meetings deciding what is going > > to go into > > > a story. > > > > > > NBC did its job in showing parts of the video on the news. > > > it's not the reporters job to decide what's tasteful or proper > > > it's not their job to protect the public or the victims from > > anything > > > their only job is to tell the story as accurately and truthfully as > > possible > > > > > > NBC was in its right to do this just as the families of the victims > > are > > > right to > > > say how much they hate NBC for doing it and for refusing to go on > > tv in > > > protest. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/19/07, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) > > > > > > > > I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making > > the > > > > changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the > > > > population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on > > > > this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do > > > > agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out > > > > things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which > > > > I know most if not all on this list do.we just have to get the > > > > rest of the world to change as well ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > > > > > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > > > > > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > > > > > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I > > don't > > > > > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- > > > > stop. > > > > > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- > > > > internet > > > > > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > > > > > > > > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll > > > > shut up. > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > > > > > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting > > to > > > > > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a > > differance. > > > > > > > > > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples > > angles, > > > > > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, > > it's > > > > > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > "missbhavens1969" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. > > > > There > > > > > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other th
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
heath, i agree with you that there are no answers and this is just a tragedy. but again, it's not the reporters job to be empathic, just to report. having worked in a newsroom for 5 years, this was a hard lesson for me to learn. On 4/20/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and going > into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told > without showing the videos? Probably and while I agree that a > reporter's job is to report on the news, I personaly feel that the > job of the editor is to weigh and to look at all angles of a story > and then deciede what should be done. > > The problem always comes from is that you will always have people who > want to look for answers, to understand "why" something > happened. "Were there clues, could we have prevented this, what's > wrong with his parenets, why wasn't he stopped or jailed" and so on > and so on. > > The sad fact is MOST times there are NO answers. Life happens, (I am > not saying that to sound cold or unfeeling, if you have seen any of > my videos, you should know I am nothing like that) But what I mean > is that things will always happen that we do not understand. > Sometimes you can gain knowledge by digging or finding out > information but a lot of times it's just random. > > Me, personaly I would not have run it. I would have found a > different way to tell this part of the story because even though I do > believe you have to report the news I would like to think we can > report the news and still have some remaing empathy. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > i have sat in many editorial news meetings deciding what is going > to go into > > a story. > > > > NBC did its job in showing parts of the video on the news. > > it's not the reporters job to decide what's tasteful or proper > > it's not their job to protect the public or the victims from > anything > > their only job is to tell the story as accurately and truthfully as > possible > > > > NBC was in its right to do this just as the families of the victims > are > > right to > > say how much they hate NBC for doing it and for refusing to go on > tv in > > protest. > > > > > > > > On 4/19/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) > > > > > > I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making > the > > > changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the > > > population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on > > > this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do > > > agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out > > > things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which > > > I know most if not all on this list do.we just have to get the > > > rest of the world to change as well ;-) > > > > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > > > > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > > > > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > > > > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I > don't > > > > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- > > > stop. > > > > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- > > > internet > > > > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > > > > > > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll > > > shut up. > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > > > > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting > to > > > > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a > differance. > > > > > > > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples > angles, > > > > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, > it's > > > > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > > > > > > > Heath > > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > "missbhavens1969" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. > > > There > > > > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the > thrill > > > of > > > > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. > > > There > > > > is > > > > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what > > > else > > > > do > > > > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do > we > > > need > > > > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the > > > American > > > > > television audien
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
But the problem is that it is going beyond simple reporting and going into the realm of explotation. Cound the same story have been told without showing the videos? Probably and while I agree that a reporter's job is to report on the news, I personaly feel that the job of the editor is to weigh and to look at all angles of a story and then deciede what should be done. The problem always comes from is that you will always have people who want to look for answers, to understand "why" something happened. "Were there clues, could we have prevented this, what's wrong with his parenets, why wasn't he stopped or jailed" and so on and so on. The sad fact is MOST times there are NO answers. Life happens, (I am not saying that to sound cold or unfeeling, if you have seen any of my videos, you should know I am nothing like that) But what I mean is that things will always happen that we do not understand. Sometimes you can gain knowledge by digging or finding out information but a lot of times it's just random. Me, personaly I would not have run it. I would have found a different way to tell this part of the story because even though I do believe you have to report the news I would like to think we can report the news and still have some remaing empathy. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i have sat in many editorial news meetings deciding what is going to go into > a story. > > NBC did its job in showing parts of the video on the news. > it's not the reporters job to decide what's tasteful or proper > it's not their job to protect the public or the victims from anything > their only job is to tell the story as accurately and truthfully as possible > > NBC was in its right to do this just as the families of the victims are > right to > say how much they hate NBC for doing it and for refusing to go on tv in > protest. > > > > On 4/19/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) > > > > I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making the > > changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the > > population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on > > this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do > > agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out > > things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which > > I know most if not all on this list do.we just have to get the > > rest of the world to change as well ;-) > > > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > > Rupert wrote: > > > > > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > > > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > > > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > > > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I don't > > > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- > > stop. > > > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- > > internet > > > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > > > > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll > > shut up. > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > > > > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > > > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting to > > > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. > > > > > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, > > > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, it's > > > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > > "missbhavens1969" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. > > There > > > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill > > of > > > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. > > There > > > is > > > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what > > else > > > do > > > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we > > need > > > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the > > American > > > > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that > > NBC > > > > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he > > wanted, > > > > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to > > a > > > > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen > > kid > > > who > > > > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted > > to > > > be > > > > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > > > > > > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time,
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
i have sat in many editorial news meetings deciding what is going to go into a story. NBC did its job in showing parts of the video on the news. it's not the reporters job to decide what's tasteful or proper it's not their job to protect the public or the victims from anything their only job is to tell the story as accurately and truthfully as possible NBC was in its right to do this just as the families of the victims are right to say how much they hate NBC for doing it and for refusing to go on tv in protest. On 4/19/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) > > I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making the > changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the > population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on > this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do > agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out > things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which > I know most if not all on this list do.we just have to get the > rest of the world to change as well ;-) > > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I don't > > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- > stop. > > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- > internet > > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll > shut up. > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting to > > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. > > > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, > > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, it's > > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > "missbhavens1969" > > wrote: > > > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. > There > > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill > of > > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. > There > > is > > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what > else > > do > > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we > need > > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the > American > > > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that > NBC > > > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he > wanted, > > > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to > a > > > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen > kid > > who > > > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted > to > > be > > > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > > > > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, > so > > > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them > whatever > > > they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the > > > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, > counselors. > > > > > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of > them > > to > > > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > > > > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have > > > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. > > Now > > > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful > about > > the > > > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > > > > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea > that "well, > > of > > > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > > > > > Bekah > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com , > "Heath" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they > > would > > > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM > > is > > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the > > news > > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, > > how do > > > > you do that? > > > > > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do > it > > > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that > > matter. > > > > > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > > > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I > > have > > >
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making the changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which I know most if not all on this list do.we just have to get the rest of the world to change as well ;-) Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I don't > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- stop. > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- internet > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll shut up. > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting to > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, it's > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "missbhavens1969" > wrote: > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There > is > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else > do > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American > > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC > > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, > > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a > > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid > who > > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to > be > > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so > > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever > > they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the > > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. > > > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them > to > > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have > > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. > Now > > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about > the > > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, > of > > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > > > Bekah > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" wrote: > > > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they > would > > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM > is > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the > news > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, > how do > > > you do that? > > > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that > matter. > > > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I > have > > > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about > my > > > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do > not > > > know. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > Heath, > > > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, > but > > > I'm > > > > going to reply anyway. > > > > > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should > they do? > > > > How should they cover it?" > > > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > > > satisfy > > > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting > the > > > > larges
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Well the first thing we could do would be to break up the conglomerates. When there are only 5 people telling the story it's easy to get carried away with ulterior motives. Then we could demand that they begin to honor their pledge to offer the public a service for the use of OUR airwaves. Then of course we could ask for some kind of lying = fraud law, and sue the fuck out of them for flat out lies and propaganda. Make them responsible, more responsible than they are hiding behind their corporate status and gYnormous bank accounts and fleets of lawyers. We were much better off when there were more than 6 companies that were slaves to profit that totally dominated our media. There's a couple right there. Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Apr 19, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Heath wrote: > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting to > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, > talk through situtions.I think those things are important, it's > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "missbhavens1969" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There > is > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else > do > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American > > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC > > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, > > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a > > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid > who > > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to > be > > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so > > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever > > they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the > > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. > > > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them > to > > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have > > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. > Now > > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about > the > > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, > of > > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > > > Bekah > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" wrote: > > > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they > would > > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM > is > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the > news > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, > how do > > > you do that? > > > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that > matter. > > > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I > have > > > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about > my > > > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do > not > > > know. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > Heath, > > > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, > but > > > I'm > > > > going to reply anyway. > > > > > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should > they do? > > > > How should they cover it?" > > > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > > > satisfy > > > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting > the > > > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you > were > > > to > > > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world > a > > > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have > a > > > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or > of > > > > any copycat massacre. > > > > > > > > "I hear a lot of people
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I don't think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non-stop. And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre-internet market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll shut up. On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting to know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, talk through situtions.I think those things are important, it's the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "missbhavens1969" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There is > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else do > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid who > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to be > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever > they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them to > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. Now > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about the > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, of > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > Bekah > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" wrote: > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > > you do that? > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have > > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my > > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not > > know. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > Heath, > > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but > > I'm > > > going to reply anyway. > > > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > > > How should they cover it?" > > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > > satisfy > > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were > > to > > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > > > any copycat massacre. > > > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very > > few > > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we > > expect > > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The > > technology > > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better > > way. > > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a resu
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in paticular in deceiding to air the videoI was merely wanting to know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, talk through situtions.I think those things are important, it's the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "missbhavens1969" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There is > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else do > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid who > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to be > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever > they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them to > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. Now > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about the > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, of > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > Bekah > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" wrote: > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > > you do that? > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have > > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my > > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not > > know. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > Heath, > > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but > > I'm > > > going to reply anyway. > > > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > > > How should they cover it?" > > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > > satisfy > > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were > > to > > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > > > any copycat massacre. > > > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very > > few > > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we > > expect > > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The > > technology > > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better > > way. > > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result > > of > > > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the > > internet > > > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > > > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media > > > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that > > they > > > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > > > > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > > > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always > > > has been." > > > Deep down, we all know what's bett
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Heath, you said: "If they didn't get ratings, they wouldn't put it up." Yeah, we're arguing the same side here, as you said. But the point is that that's how they get ratings *now* in this limited system. And the other point is that people have no choice but to watch if they want to watch the news, which many of us do. And these people have storytelling and suspense and titillation down to a tee. Even if you object to it morally, which most people don't very strongly, it's often hard to resist being drawn in. They deliver it the way that some people deliver cruel office gossip. You don't want to listen, and you're just about to stop, but it's hard to tune it out. I just want to able to turn on my TV and not have to watch it. That's all. And soon I will be able to. Get more human news from elsewhere. While that stuff carries on, appealing to, say 25% of the population. Then they can get their ratings from the evil shit, and they can also get their ratings from me. Win/Win. Oh, and BTW, Drew said he would give it to a committee to decide, not bury it. Good answer. Rupert Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 19 Apr 2007, at 22:51, Bill Cammack wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, devil's advocate here, It does go to Drew/Rocketboom, he doesn't > run it, then people find out it was sent to RB, someboby asks "why > did he send it to RB, why would he do that, RB never showed it, why? > Does RB have something to hide?", "if RB doesn't have anything to > hide they should show it" Don't think that would happen? You better > believe it would happen. In this hypothetical scenario, there's no agreement between Rocketboom and anyone sending them material. Actually, even if they ASK someone to send them material, there's no obligation to air it if they don't feel like it. "Why did he send it there?" can be answered by the fact that he's a fan, and he thought a lot of people would see it if it were aired there. In the real-life situation, the shooter chose wisely, because he sent it to a station that did exactly what he wanted done with it. "Do they have something to hide?" would have to rest upon the belief that there was some kind of agreement between the sender and the station/show. Without evidence of any agreement, it's the same thing as if someone sends any other materials that you don't choose to air on your own station or show. There's nothing to hide... there's just no connection to this person, so there's no reason to post it. I'm sure it would happen. There are always conspiracy theorists. The question is what kind of a show/station are you running, anyway? Is your goal to cater to anyone that sends you anything? I think a better question than why DIDN'T you show it would be... why DID you show it? :/ When you know damned well that the shooter is dead and the relatives and friends of the victims are the ones that you're showing these videos to as if it's a trailer for the next movie release, what makes you think that's an intelligent thing to do? The answer is "the bottom line", but what it shows is how greedy you are to make a buck. Bill C. http://BillCammack.com > Should they have shown it, NO, but's that's me, some would say it > should be shown, for everyone saying "tit" I can find someone who > says "tat" > > Take the Unibomber for example, they never ran his "manafestio" for > years because they didn't want to encouge him or give him a forum, > when they finally did, he was caught. Now you have some people who > would say, "if you ran it earlier you could have saved lifes", "why > didn't you run it earlier?" Now this is not excatly the same but the > principal is there. How do you deciede what the right thing to do > is? > > Wheather anyone wants to admit this or not, there are a lot of sides > to consider and in all honesty there probably is no "right" answers > just shades of grey > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "bestdamntechshow" > wrote: > > > > Bingo, thank you for saying this Drew. > > > > Just because it got to a news station doesn't mean it should be > published. > > > > At what point do we not feed into crazy peoples egos? He sent it to > > NBC so his message would be splattered everywhere, and he got his > wish. > > > > _drew > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the > news > > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, > how do > > > > you do that? > > > > > > If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. > > > > > > I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, devil's advocate here, It does go to Drew/Rocketboom, he doesn't > run it, then people find out it was sent to RB, someboby asks "why > did he send it to RB, why would he do that, RB never showed it, why? > Does RB have something to hide?", "if RB doesn't have anything to > hide they should show it" Don't think that would happen? You better > believe it would happen. In this hypothetical scenario, there's no agreement between Rocketboom and anyone sending them material. Actually, even if they ASK someone to send them material, there's no obligation to air it if they don't feel like it. "Why did he send it there?" can be answered by the fact that he's a fan, and he thought a lot of people would see it if it were aired there. In the real-life situation, the shooter chose wisely, because he sent it to a station that did exactly what he wanted done with it. "Do they have something to hide?" would have to rest upon the belief that there was some kind of agreement between the sender and the station/show. Without evidence of any agreement, it's the same thing as if someone sends any other materials that you don't choose to air on your own station or show. There's nothing to hide... there's just no connection to this person, so there's no reason to post it. I'm sure it would happen. There are always conspiracy theorists. The question is what kind of a show/station are you running, anyway? Is your goal to cater to anyone that sends you anything? I think a better question than why DIDN'T you show it would be... why DID you show it? :/ When you know damned well that the shooter is dead and the relatives and friends of the victims are the ones that you're showing these videos to as if it's a trailer for the next movie release, what makes you think that's an intelligent thing to do? The answer is "the bottom line", but what it shows is how greedy you are to make a buck. Bill C. http://BillCammack.com > Should they have shown it, NO, but's that's me, some would say it > should be shown, for everyone saying "tit" I can find someone who > says "tat" > > Take the Unibomber for example, they never ran his "manafestio" for > years because they didn't want to encouge him or give him a forum, > when they finally did, he was caught. Now you have some people who > would say, "if you ran it earlier you could have saved lifes", "why > didn't you run it earlier?" Now this is not excatly the same but the > principal is there. How do you deciede what the right thing to do > is? > > Wheather anyone wants to admit this or not, there are a lot of sides > to consider and in all honesty there probably is no "right" answers > just shades of grey > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "bestdamntechshow" > wrote: > > > > Bingo, thank you for saying this Drew. > > > > Just because it got to a news station doesn't mean it should be > published. > > > > At what point do we not feed into crazy peoples egos? He sent it to > > NBC so his message would be splattered everywhere, and he got his > wish. > > > > _drew > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the > news > > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, > how do > > > > you do that? > > > > > > If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. > > > > > > I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do with it > > > based on academic reasons as opposed to economics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There is nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else do we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid who dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to be a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them to air to air them and to air them so quickly. It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. Now NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about the remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, of course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. Bekah --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > you do that? > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not > know. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > > > Heath, > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but > I'm > > going to reply anyway. > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > > How should they cover it?" > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > satisfy > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were > to > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > > any copycat massacre. > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very > few > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we > expect > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The > technology > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better > way. > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result > of > > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the > internet > > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media > > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that > they > > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always > > has been." > > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're buying > into > > prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading what > > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything else. > > When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits on > > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose a > lot > > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there > > because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > [
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
at lunch today, I heard 3/4ths of an NPR story by Xeni Jardin she interviewed Doc Searls who just repeated his email. she also talked to a woman and man talking about how it may promote copycats, but I was surprised that no one said anything like "maybe they should have not released it" they mentioned that this is just the new manifesto, like ted kaczynski had his typewriter, today's murderers use digital media... nevertheless, I would have preferred that they maybe describe the contents but kept the video to themselves. On 4/19/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh and the other month someone in the UK went into a video chatroom, > which was apparently one specifically designed to be for people to > hurl abuse at eachother. Only this bloke decided to hang himself, and > some people in the virtual room tried to sstop him, others goaded him > on, with one saying something about 'look he cant even do that > properly'. Anyway he hung himself right there with his webcam on, and > died before the emergecy services could get there. I imagine everyon > who was in that chatroom is scarred by the experience. > > Thats the most horrible thing Ive heard of happening on the net, and > where the net was actually a proper part of the story, and the linking > of things like Mondays tragedy to the net just seem extremely by > comparison. Bloggers who see everything in terms of the blogosphere > probably need to widen their world view bubble. > > NBC themselves called his package a 'multimedia manifesto' didnt they? > I feel less inclined to use the word multimedia myself now, so I can > see where people worried about the term videoblog being smeared by > this tragedy are coming from. > > Steve Elbows > > -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com www.SlowLorisMedia.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Bravo. And that's why you'd never get to be a news director at MSNBC And that's why you'd never get to be Rupert Murdoch Hell, you're Murdoch 2.0 :) Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 19 Apr 2007, at 18:01, andrew michael baron wrote: If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do with it based on academic reasons as opposed to economics. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Ok, devil's advocate here, It does go to Drew/Rocketboom, he doesn't run it, then people find out it was sent to RB, someboby asks "why did he send it to RB, why would he do that, RB never showed it, why? Does RB have something to hide?", "if RB doesn't have anything to hide they should show it" Don't think that would happen? You better believe it would happen. Should they have shown it, NO, but's that's me, some would say it should be shown, for everyone saying "tit" I can find someone who says "tat" Take the Unibomber for example, they never ran his "manafestio" for years because they didn't want to encouge him or give him a forum, when they finally did, he was caught. Now you have some people who would say, "if you ran it earlier you could have saved lifes", "why didn't you run it earlier?" Now this is not excatly the same but the principal is there. How do you deciede what the right thing to do is? Wheather anyone wants to admit this or not, there are a lot of sides to consider and in all honesty there probably is no "right" answers just shades of grey Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "bestdamntechshow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bingo, thank you for saying this Drew. > > Just because it got to a news station doesn't mean it should be published. > > At what point do we not feed into crazy peoples egos? He sent it to > NBC so his message would be splattered everywhere, and he got his wish. > > _drew > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron > wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Heath wrote: > > > > > I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > > > you do that? > > > > If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. > > > > I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do with it > > based on academic reasons as opposed to economics. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Bingo, thank you for saying this Drew. Just because it got to a news station doesn't mean it should be published. At what point do we not feed into crazy peoples egos? He sent it to NBC so his message would be splattered everywhere, and he got his wish. _drew --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Heath wrote: > > > I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > > you do that? > > If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. > > I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do with it > based on academic reasons as opposed to economics. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Oh and the other month someone in the UK went into a video chatroom, which was apparently one specifically designed to be for people to hurl abuse at eachother. Only this bloke decided to hang himself, and some people in the virtual room tried to sstop him, others goaded him on, with one saying something about 'look he cant even do that properly'. Anyway he hung himself right there with his webcam on, and died before the emergecy services could get there. I imagine everyon who was in that chatroom is scarred by the experience. Thats the most horrible thing Ive heard of happening on the net, and where the net was actually a proper part of the story, and the linking of things like Mondays tragedy to the net just seem extremely by comparison. Bloggers who see everything in terms of the blogosphere probably need to widen their world view bubble. NBC themselves called his package a 'multimedia manifesto' didnt they? I feel less inclined to use the word multimedia myself now, so I can see where people worried about the term videoblog being smeared by this tragedy are coming from. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But I dont > want to go too far in suggesting videoblogging has never crossed paths > with death videos.
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
And I bet if a small independent such as Rocketboom had published, there would be a hell of a lot more cirticism towards you than NBC will get. Winer has always wound me up, I cant read his stuff, its bad for my blood pressure. I was pissed off at the mainstream medias coverage of this tragedy before this new 'angle' emerged. I picked the wrong day to get a satellite dish, ugh Sky News here in the UK were running a story early on that showed various victims blogs/social networking spaces, and the grieving messages, and I dunno, the tone of the piece made it seem sick to me. The UK news networks generally went into the same constant emergency quack mode that they go into when there is some terrorist attack or something in the UK. Left with so much airtime to fill, thousands of words of crap, ill thought out drivel and phoney expert opinion fill the airwaves. Then the politics emerges, people form a position which suits their causePlenty of measures of limited use will be proposed, kneejerk reactions and jerks in general will be everywhere. Visuals that have a powerful effect on people will be shown again and again and again, just as with 9/11. The media as an amplifier, they will zoom in to certain things and amplify, amplify, amplify the psychological damage. At the same time they will talk about the need to help mend this damage. But must be careful of what the agendas are of those who call for the media to act with more restraint and withold stuff. Whenever some military scandal broke, Rumsfelds words always made it seem like it was the media that was the problem, not the events their images covered. This was especially true with the Abu Graib photos. And lets not forget the criticism he levelled at networks like Al Jazeera when they showed stuff the USA didnt like. As for whether this stuff will lead to copycat stuff, well there is no doubt humans do copy behaviour from eachother, but once you go down the path of trying to prevent this, you end up having to suppress so much information, where do you draw the line? For a start we can include all the debates abotut films, tv, computer games & music encouraging violence. We could argue that books that go into huge detail about the lives of serial killers, could encourage copycats. Anyway who is to say this killer did not copy someone else? Didnt the Canadian school shooter from the last year or so, post photographs of himself posing with knives and guns on a social networking site? As I recall the media poured over every detail on his site, what music he liked. And they suggested that he as influenced by a computer game about columbine. In the 'War on Terror' there are some very similar issues. If terror attacks are carried out for the psychological impact they have, then doesnt giving them lots of coverage, help the terrorists and encourage others? Im interested in defending videoblogging from and phoney arguments that somehow tars all videobloggers with the same brush. But I dont want to go too far in suggesting videoblogging has never crossed paths with death videos. Before mosstly anybody though to call themselves a videoblogger, a video of Daniel Peal getting his throat cut was on the net. Various videos of Iraq insurgent activity, beheadings, the hanging of saddam, and many other terrible things have happened since. Atrocities carried out in other warzones, such as Chechnya, had also been distributed on the net for many years, as had various other sorts of slightly less violent propaganda. Most recently we have been told that Mexican Drug gangs are using youtube to intimidate eachother and post videos of torture and murder. So I repeat my belief that as video on the internet becomes a normal human activity, it will come to show us all the things that humans are capable of being and doing. Things and people we are only used to reading about, or being heavily filtered, will enter our minds through our eyes and ears as never before. There is and will continue to be much joy and much horror nd much else in between. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Heath wrote: > > > I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > > you do that? > > If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. > > I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do with it > based on academic reasons as opposed to economics. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >What we get instead is 24x7 5 days of "Next! Watch the > chilling words of a psychopath! And we ask, was he possessed by >the > Devil? Right after these messages!" The devil story was a Fox >News > story today. Instead of other real news. If I had the choice, I > would have read/watched other news instead of having to sit >through > that. > > Rupert > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ But we do have a choice we have the choice not to watch. If they didn't get ratings, they wouldn't put it up. I mean they do need to make money too. So why is that a feature? Because it sells. So don't watch. (Not saying you did watch, just making a general statement) Heath http://batmangeek.com > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 17:23, Heath wrote: > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > you do that? > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not > know. > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert wrote: > > > > Heath, > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but > I'm > > going to reply anyway. > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > > How should they cover it?" > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > satisfy > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were > to > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > > any copycat massacre. > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very > few > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we > expect > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The > technology > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better > way. > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result > of > > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the > internet > > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media > > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that > they > > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always > > has been." > > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're buying > into > > prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading what > > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything else. > > When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits on > > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose a > lot > > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there > > because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Heath wrote: > I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do > you do that? If the guy sent the package to Rocketboom, I wouldn't publish it. I would hand it over to a committee to decide what to do with it based on academic reasons as opposed to economics. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
I don't think many of us would want to put ourselves in the shoes of a network news director. If i was in that job right, now, I'm pretty sure I'd have very little choice about how I delivered the news. In fact, I'd just *know* how it was done, and that's how I'd have got the job. It's done the way its done because there is no other way at the moment. Steve made some suggestions about what he'd like to see in future. But the point is, there isn't space here to describe the many different ways that today's world news will be covered when media is distributed differently. But even among the large networks, I bet you'll find that they *won't* be just pushing the sensationalist single story keep-em- hooked in stuff all the time. They'd be crazy to. What about the other 75% of people who want to hear something better? They can serve them, too. And make money from them. So there'll be a greater mix of news, and people won't just have to wait until the one huge news item is finished before another begins. If that one huge new item ever finishes, which at times like this, it doesn't. So in future, if people want to watch or read an engaging report about pets dying or what it's like for Iraqis, they will be able to. Currently, there's no room for those stories in the news cycle, because there's limited channels and limited time. So they don't get told. What we get instead is 24x7 5 days of "Next! Watch the chilling words of a psychopath! And we ask, was he possessed by the Devil? Right after these messages!" The devil story was a Fox News story today. Instead of other real news. If I had the choice, I would have read/watched other news instead of having to sit through that. Rupert Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 19 Apr 2007, at 17:23, Heath wrote: Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do you do that? I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not know. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heath, > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but I'm > going to reply anyway. > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > How should they cover it?" > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can satisfy > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were to > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > better place, is a different matter. > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > any copycat massacre. > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very few > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we expect > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The technology > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better way. > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result of > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the internet > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that they > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always > has been." > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're buying into > prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading what > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything else. > When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits on > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose a lot > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there > because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twitt
[videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they would have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM is covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the news director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, how do you do that? I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that matter. you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I have no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about my son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do not know. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heath, > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but I'm > going to reply anyway. > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? > How should they cover it?" > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can satisfy > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were to > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a > better place, is a different matter. > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of > any copycat massacre. > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very few > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we expect > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The technology > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better way. > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result of > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the internet > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that they > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always > has been." > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're buying into > prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading what > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything else. > When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits on > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose a lot > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there > because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: > > . > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: MSM (was Scripting News: 4/18/2007)
Heath, I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, but I'm going to reply anyway. "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should they do? How should they cover it?" You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can satisfy their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting the largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you were to prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world a better place, is a different matter. "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have a hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or of any copycat massacre. "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see very few answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we expect anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The technology we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better way. As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a result of the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the internet and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the media will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that they couldn't afford to bother with before. "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, always has been." Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're buying into prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading what they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything else. When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits on distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose a lot more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
