Comments on: Debating the debate http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:40:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Reality Bites: The YouTube/CNN debate http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/#comment-3226 Reality Bites: The YouTube/CNN debate Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:39:25 +0000 http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/#comment-3226 [...] Jeff Jarvis writes in his blog. And therewith he summarizes the problem of the debate: Where-else CNN worked in a typical broadcasting way, presenting the candidates as stiff puppets, hold together by a rigid anchor man, the YouTube videos were very different in their amateurism, in their spontaneity and sometimes quirkiness. Presentation versus Conversation. Reality bites in the artificiality of the studio. Accompanied by a lot of other dichotomies: old versus new, pro versus am, big versus little. Kevin Marsh calls it: ‘[…] a clash between two media cultures; old-style ‘big journalism’ and new-style ‘citizen media’. [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis writes in his blog. And therewith he summarizes the problem of the debate: Where-else CNN worked in a typical broadcasting way, presenting the candidates as stiff puppets, hold together by a rigid anchor man, the YouTube videos were very different in their amateurism, in their spontaneity and sometimes quirkiness. Presentation versus Conversation. Reality bites in the artificiality of the studio. Accompanied by a lot of other dichotomies: old versus new, pro versus am, big versus little. Kevin Marsh calls it: ‘[…] a clash between two media cultures; old-style ‘big journalism’ and new-style ‘citizen media’. [...]

]]> By: Kevin Marsh http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/#comment-3131 Kevin Marsh Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:09:00 +0000 http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/#comment-3131 Jeff, I don’t think you and me are very far apart on this – and certainly I was talking in my blog about the fusion, not the merits of YouTubing an election. I hope I made it clear – big journalism’s monopoly is over; good. But that doesn’t mean a)YouTubed political media are ipso facto Good Things or b) ‘citizen media’ has supplanted or can supplant ‘big media’ I accept that you and I share the same anxieties over the Macaca-isation of political CM – but where you’re an optimist, I’m a pessimist. You misrepresent me, too; I pointedly never accused you of having a personal value system ascribing high worth to Macaca moments – I’m sure you don’t. What I did say was that ascribing a high value to Macaca-moments lies behind social networking sites … whether you and I like that or not. In fact, ‘citizen media’ are no better than ‘big media’ when it comes to over-valuing the scalp. But if you want an example of what I mean by this unwritten value system, you only need to take a look at your own interview with Joe Trippi on PrezVid back in April when he joined the Edwards camp. http://prezvid.com/2007/04/20/prezvid-show-trippi-speaks/ I’ll remind you of what he said – apologies if my transcription skills aren’t up to snuff: “I think we’re going to look back at 2008 and see … that there was a YouTube moment when whoa ... that really gave that guy or that woman some momentum. I also think we’re going to be looking back at the end of 2008 and saying ‘whoa …that person was doing really well until someone caught them with that cellphone camera and they didn’t really know how to explain it; they got caught in an off-guard … unguarded moment and that took down their campaign”. In short, I don’t think I’m projecting my view on you of what I want to think you said – I think I’m summarising what happens when social networking meets the political conversation. But back to the fusion – where we seem to agree. Context is everything … and as I think is clear from the comments on my original blog, the UK context is utterly different from the US. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/07/fusing_big_and_citizen_media.html UK ‘big media’ has a long and continuing tradition of bringing ‘the people’ into the political conversation – and not just at election time. Over thirty years ago, one of the biggest ever ‘big media’ beasts, Sir Robin Day, hosted a radio show called ‘It’s your line …’ – where the likes of me and you called to put our questions in our voices to political figures. Another radio show – one of the oldest on the BBC – ‘Any Questions’ has a high audience and high-reputation because of its format; again, we the people put our questions in our voices to a panel of public figures. The format also runs on TV under the title ‘Question Time’. And UK local and regional radio’s staple is the phone-in – again, often involving we the people questioning in our voices local leaders. I appreciate the US context is different – and I suspect had CNN taken more lessons from the UK media (or, indeed, if there was more of a tradition of the format) it might have avoided many of your own criticisms. But it didn’t – and that’s why I think the fusion failed … and for some of the reasons you cite. My main point, though, was that we shouldn’t let our enthusiasm – and I am an enthusiast, for citizen media – persuade us that ‘big media’ has lost all legitimacy and/or that ‘citizen media’ can replace traditional journalism or anything that traditional journalism does. CNN may have messed up on this attempt at fusion – but that doesn’t mean that if CNN had succeeded, it would have been conniving in its own decline. Jeff, I don’t think you and me are very far apart on this – and certainly I was talking in my blog about the fusion, not the merits of YouTubing an election.
I hope I made it clear – big journalism’s monopoly is over; good. But that doesn’t mean a)YouTubed political media are ipso facto Good Things or b) ‘citizen media’ has supplanted or can supplant ‘big media’
I accept that you and I share the same anxieties over the Macaca-isation of political CM – but where you’re an optimist, I’m a pessimist.
You misrepresent me, too; I pointedly never accused you of having a personal value system ascribing high worth to Macaca moments – I’m sure you don’t. What I did say was that ascribing a high value to Macaca-moments lies behind social networking sites … whether you and I like that or not. In fact, ‘citizen media’ are no better than ‘big media’ when it comes to over-valuing the scalp.
But if you want an example of what I mean by this unwritten value system, you only need to take a look at your own interview with Joe Trippi on PrezVid back in April when he joined the Edwards camp.
http://prezvid.com/2007/04/20/prezvid-show-trippi-speaks/

I’ll remind you of what he said – apologies if my transcription skills aren’t up to snuff:
“I think we’re going to look back at 2008 and see … that there was a YouTube moment when whoa … that really gave that guy or that woman some momentum. I also think we’re going to be looking back at the end of 2008 and saying ‘whoa …that person was doing really well until someone caught them with that cellphone camera and they didn’t really know how to explain it; they got caught in an off-guard … unguarded moment and that took down their campaign”.
In short, I don’t think I’m projecting my view on you of what I want to think you said – I think I’m summarising what happens when social networking meets the political conversation.
But back to the fusion – where we seem to agree. Context is everything … and as I think is clear from the comments on my original blog, the UK context is utterly different from the US. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/07/fusing_big_and_citizen_media.html

UK ‘big media’ has a long and continuing tradition of bringing ‘the people’ into the political conversation – and not just at election time. Over thirty years ago, one of the biggest ever ‘big media’ beasts, Sir Robin Day, hosted a radio show called ‘It’s your line …’ – where the likes of me and you called to put our questions in our voices to political figures. Another radio show – one of the oldest on the BBC – ‘Any Questions’ has a high audience and high-reputation because of its format; again, we the people put our questions in our voices to a panel of public figures. The format also runs on TV under the title ‘Question Time’. And UK local and regional radio’s staple is the phone-in – again, often involving we the people questioning in our voices local leaders.
I appreciate the US context is different – and I suspect had CNN taken more lessons from the UK media (or, indeed, if there was more of a tradition of the format) it might have avoided many of your own criticisms. But it didn’t – and that’s why I think the fusion failed … and for some of the reasons you cite.
My main point, though, was that we shouldn’t let our enthusiasm – and I am an enthusiast, for citizen media – persuade us that ‘big media’ has lost all legitimacy and/or that ‘citizen media’ can replace traditional journalism or anything that traditional journalism does. CNN may have messed up on this attempt at fusion – but that doesn’t mean that if CNN had succeeded, it would have been conniving in its own decline.

]]> By: A.man.I http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/#comment-3120 A.man.I Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:52:28 +0000 http://prezvid.com/2007/07/25/debating-the-debate/#comment-3120 Jeff, I have to disagree with you on the YouTube debates. I think part of the problem has to do with the compression rates of YouTube videos. The flatscreens that were used have a much larger aspect ratio than the Internet videos that were uploaded to YouTube. If you notice, whenever a YouTube video is aired in the news, it's usually smaller than the full screen. Traditional video is 720x480 while Internet videos are often compressed to 320x240. That being said there may have been a more effective way to broadcast or show the video to the audience. My biggest complaint is that all of the candidates didn't have a chance to answer the questions, and it seemed like Anderson rushed to get to all 40 or so questions that were chosen. Overall I believe the citizen questions added a human touch to the debate, and the candidates were certainly challenged at times, and it was very interactive. I'd like to see what changes they make for the Republican debate. Jeff, I have to disagree with you on the YouTube debates. I think part of the problem has to do with the compression rates of YouTube videos. The flatscreens that were used have a much larger aspect ratio than the Internet videos that were uploaded to YouTube. If you notice, whenever a YouTube video is aired in the news, it’s usually smaller than the full screen. Traditional video is 720×480 while Internet videos are often compressed to 320×240. That being said there may have been a more effective way to broadcast or show the video to the audience. My biggest complaint is that all of the candidates didn’t have a chance to answer the questions, and it seemed like Anderson rushed to get to all 40 or so questions that were chosen. Overall I believe the citizen questions added a human touch to the debate, and the candidates were certainly challenged at times, and it was very interactive. I’d like to see what changes they make for the Republican debate.

]]>