Posts filed under 'Journalism enterprise'
Rating: 
What do they say it is?
“Friction.tv believes that disagreement - or friction - is a vital element for a healthy debate, to reach new insights and to find out what’s really going on in society. We need disagreement before we can start to find some answers… Friction.tv is unbiased, open and uncensored (except for explicit content)… empowers you to climb on the soapbox and voice your mind about any topic at any time. You can ignore mass media and bring out the issues that really matter… Friction.tv will provide an interesting and stimulating alternative to the sanitised, agenda driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media.”
What do I say it is?
A formulaic video publishing site that relies too much on the soapbox for its claims to be an alternative media platform. For example, it has sections for Politics, Education, Environment, Local Issues, Sport, Society, Entertainment, and sponsored channels. A quick comparison, some of the sections of Guardian.co.uk are News, Sport, Politics, Environment, Culture, etc… Some of Friction.tv’s main content providers are The Conservatives, Greenpeace, LBC Radio. The content is somewhere between Youtube and Current.tv, without ever quite feeling either spontaneous, timely, or usefully provocative.
What’s great about it?
The speed of the viewing interface, the breadth of voices, the open access for any editorial, and the narrow brief—issues that can be debated.
I’m pleased to be able to access , for example, the views of Ian Taylor MP, Chair of the Conservative Science & Technology Committee, “arguing why there should be a rationale debate over this country’s energy requirements” as much as to hear the views of the Washington DC students talking over the noise of the kitchen party about old white men in power.
And forgive me, but I do love the retro curved TV box to watch the video through. I also think the learnt navigation / interaction is great (once learnt), in that you need to roll over the video for the dynamic control box (pause, play, volume, FFWD etc) to pop up. It’s probably a good idea, too, to hide the controls and time counter in this way, particularly when you’ve clicked on a video from David Cameron asking “I think our relationship with America is vital. What do you think?” and the first minute is all about the situation in the Balkans. Who edited that one?
What could be better?
Which brings me onto… content. Of course Friction.tv is subject to the quality of the video and argument uploaded, and some of it… most of it… just isn’t worthy of debate. Some areas of the mass media are banal, celebrity, agenda-driven, dumbed-down versions of journalism. But that doesn’t mean I want an online video debate site to reproduce that same dilute and scattergun approach to content, particularly when that site is claiming to provide an alternative. A lot of the content is either advertising a belief or position, or simply soap-box raving, which does not engender debate. Friction, maybe, but there is a difference.
Take this ‘debate’ as an example. I chose this example for two key reasons. First, it was one of the advertised ‘hot topics’ on the homepage. Second, its headline ties in with what Friction.tv says about itself, providing alternatives to the ‘agenda-driven mediocrity of the conventional mass media’.
Under the title “Islamophobes: don’t believe the media” it is in fact a very softly spoken advertisement for the Edinburgh Central Mosque and activities they are running at the Edinburgh festival (I assume last August, 2007: the debate has been running for seven months, but is on the homepage as it is one of the ‘hot debates’ as it has gained the most comments, 799 when reviewing).
But a) it is not a debate, b) nothing in the video makes reference to why the mass media cannot be trusted, and puts forward no arguments, c) the comments are not a direct debating response, d) there is no response I can see from the makers of the video, and e) can a debate run for seven months? Not to mention f) what are the answers, what next, what happens now?
This seems a fairly typical example. The ratio of video responses for this story (1 out of 799) is also about standard. The people at OneWorld.tv tried this video dialogue back in 2001/2 but it failed. Maybe it was too early. Maybe Friction.tv is itself also a bit premature for video-to-video debate.
A couple of points on accessibility/usability:
- Every video does not have a transcript, which to meet good accessibility standards they should have. Of course this will be difficult, but it does mean Friction.tv is only for those who do not have a hearing disability
- The debates / comments publish last at the top; there is no right answer to this, but if you are trying to read the flow of a debate (rather than just a list of comments) then you need to constantly scroll up, down a little bit, back up, etc. The BBC publish comments from top to bottom. As do sites that encourage debate on their articles, such as OpenDemocracy.net. Another video site, current.tv, also do comments chronologically from top to bottom, so you can follow the debate (as an example view this debate)
- Are the Agree/Neutral/Disagree flags with the original video, or to the comment before, etc? What if the original video is not posing a particular question, or it is crowbarred to fit the format for the site?
- The ‘local issues’ tab also means happening locally, not necessarily local to you. Which needs sorting, as there is no way to sort what is local (i.e. within 50 miles or so) to me. So it immediately frustrates.
How is it going to make money?
The numbers game. The more views and comments, the more traffic, hence the benefit from remaining editorially removed from managing the hot topic choices, for example.
Also, Friction.tv has a number of channels (e.g. sponsored video feeds) from the likes of The Conservatives, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, all organisations that want to create debate and will bring in traffic. These channels are actually one of the better things on the site, as they try (although do not always succeed) to frame the content within a for/against debate.
Should I pay it any attention?
Out of the corner of the eye, yes. Friction.tv is one of the easy to use video/TV sites vying for a position of notoriety and fame (and the advertising revenue) along with current.tv, youtube.com, green.tv etc, and could potentially to be the one to win the race. But with only two subscribers to its Youtube channel, it needs to rely less on the ideal of free speech to make its name and more on delivering some of those ‘answers’ that it talks about in its promotional blurb.
By Alex Lockwood
Share
Sphere: Related Content
April 9th, 2008
Rating:
Paul Bradshaw looks at FriendFeed
What do they say it is?
“FriendFeed enables you to keep up-to-date on the web pages, photos, videos and music that your friends and family are sharing. It offers a unique way to discover and discuss information among friends.”
What do I say it is?
Facebook, but uglier and more flexible.
What’s great about it?
It does what it says. The suggestion feature allows you to discover people and feeds you would otherwise not know about. Unlike Facebook, you don’t have to be someone’s friend to follow their stuff. The imaginary friend feature allows you to aggregate feeds. It has also released its API, opening up all sorts of possibilities for third party apps.
What could be better?
A more usable interface; some way to filter the information overload that comes from a river of feeds from anyone and everyone.
How is it going to make money?
Given it’s copied Facebook’s success so far, probably advertising. But also selling services to other clients who want bespoke apps, etc. may be another revenue stream.
Should I pay it any attention?
Given the hype so far, it’ll be hard not to. The impression here is of something that will continue to develop in an iterative way, particularly with 3rd party apps, so yes, watch it and see how it grows.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
March 26th, 2008
Rating:
What do they say it is?
Gnooze describes itself as: “The day’s news, with funny voices, in about two minutes. Featuring Marta Costello, produced by Amazing Cosbars”
What do I say it is?
A daily news show with a difference.
Meet Marta Costello. She’s blonde, pretty and opinionated. She’s also strikingly intelligent, rip-roaringly funny and a measured professional. Her show tackles the big news stories of the past 24 hours. ‘Tackles’ being the best word there: Marta goes from a calm, factual narrative to shouting and screaming her opinions at the camera.
Most stories follow the format of roughly 10 seconds or so of news-y detail, and then satirical role play that often start with the phrase: “So Bush was all like, y’know, whatever…!”
What’s great about it?
It has two great attractions. One being the obvious appeal of the stunning Marta who, you’ll soon realise, has quite a following of entranced male fans. Two being the extraordinary way in which the news is portrayed. Marta piles fact after fact on the viewer, and then puts it in a language that can not only be understood by everyone, but also laughed at too. It’s infectious.
Adding to its greatness is Marta’s video blogs. In these, she defends her editorial decisions – if you can call them that – with surprising integrity. Her recent thoughts about comments made by Hillary Clinton were particularly interesting and blissfully well put.
What could be better?
I hope that as Gnooze blossoms it may make its way to its own fully-formed news site, or maybe even a television show. I can imagine people watching this. Think Newsround but for late teens and without all the horrible patronising.
If Marta can get some more presenters on board and produce regular coverage of the same quality, we could have a youth-media revolution on our hands.
How is it going to make money?
Adverts, adverts, adverts. Gnooze is screaming out to be picked up by a television network. Something like ‘MTV Gnooze’ has a certain inevitable ring to it. It certainly wouldn’t be out of place on a channel like E4 either. The program’s almost cult-like quality will stand it in good stead.
Should I pay it any attention?
Absolutely. Not only because it can only grow and grow, but also because it’s rather, well, fun. It’s a nice break to hear some brash, opinionated American sound off about huge global news stories. It becomes even more enjoyable when you realise that somehow, in amongst the arm-waving and the face-pulling, Gnooze provides some of the most truthful, to-the-point journalism I’ve seen for quite some time.
A triumph in every sense of the word.
by Dave Lee
Share
Sphere: Related Content
January 15th, 2008
Rating:
What do they say it is?
20Palabras is the first Argentinian Web site with news produced and read in mobile devices. It is a project of journalistic innovation orientated to the formats of the future, and it was created by Darío Gallo and Pablo Mancini.
How does it work?
A team of journalists selected to collaborate in the project feeds the service from any place where the news is happening (through palms, cellular telephones or laptops).
In a few seconds and with only 20 words (20Palabras) every journalist publishes the information on the instant. The “scattered staff” has more than twenty members.
It is designed for the digital natives, but its functionality and design of information is ideal for those who looks for information instantly, without unnecessary data, in an informal and succinct language.
What do I say it is?
This Web site is a solution for the information needs of advanced users, people who do not have time to read newspapers and use mobile devices.
20Palabras is divided into eight areas of information, where the essence of a news story is transmitted, delivering the most relevant information to the users.
What’s great about it?
The format, the way how it works. How they work in different places, journalists feed the service from anywhere the news happens.
The process is very innovative, it’s a kind of Twitter of Argentine news. The wonderful thing is the immediacy in the publication, the easy way of publishing from any place through the mobile.
It has resources like podcasts created from and to mobile devices.
The design is clean, It´s usable and accessible.
What could be better?
It could be better if the news were generated from other countries too (not only from Argentina) and if the posts had external links for the users who would like to get more information.
How is it going to make money?
Apparently through advertising.
In the web site there is a contact for those who want to announce in it, but I did not see advertising in its pages.
Should I pay it any attention?
We should pay attention to the evolution of the 20Palabras, to the copy of the model and the way how this web site will be promoted in the near future.
by Darcy Vergara P.
Share
Sphere: Related Content
January 7th, 2008
What do they say it is?
“FreshTies main aim is to encourage individuals, charities and businesses alike to actively participate in their local community. It gives individuals the chance to swap things, find local news and ways to help their community; buinesses the chance to promote their services, news to classifieds and initiatives;charities the chance to reach more people for support, resources and funds. It gives budding journalists/writers in need of experience, and those who would like a higher profile, the opportunity to write about their local community in various roles, as editor, reporter or features writer on local content, as well as content for a national audience.”
What do we say it is?
An interesting up and coming citizen journalism project set up by a former City lawyer, Ashish Poddar, that allows people to write about local issues and topics that interest them. From the information provided on the site it seems that individual writers will have a considerable amount of scope to develop their own stories and ideas and have a real choice in what they write about. An excellent way to gain experience and to participate in your local community at the same time. To access the FreshTies site fully you need to join as a member, which allows you to search for FreshTies members in your area. An individual membership costs £10.00 —- £5.00 of which goes to FreshTies and £5.00 going to a local fund to benefit your community.
What makes it great?
It is a well developed site and the developers obviously believe in what they are doing.
What mistakes are they making?
Although the website is well presented and easy to navigate, there needs to be a clearer explanation of what you can be expected to have access to when you join FreshTies as a member - it doesn’t really specify what is available to you at present which will potentially put some people off from joining.
How is it going to make money?
Freshties is a regulated, not-for-profit organisation, which makes money from its membership fees alone - they use all profits for causes in the community.However, because this is a slightly different take on many of the citizen journalism projects out there already, it provides an alternative for people who want to actively participate in journalistic pursuits. However, without any real advertising, word of mouth is the only way that the site is going to get further publicity. A lot will depend on whether current FreshTies members are happy with the services that they are receiving at present and if they are telling their friends about the site.
Should I pay any attention?
Yes. If you are interested about participating in writing about local community issues FreshTies offers the perfect opportunity to get involved and meet like minded people.
by Melissa Edwards
Share
Sphere: Related Content
December 13th, 2007
What do they say it is?“Yoosk is a news interplay magazine and community where you, the members are the reporters. Put your questions directly to politicians and celebrities and watch those questions gain support as other Yoosk members vote for them. Our pledge to you is that any question which reaches 100 votes will be submitted by us to the person involved and we will do our best to get an answer”
What do I say it is?
An interesting attempt of doing collaborative journalistic interviews. People choose what to ask and who will be interviewed, vote for the best questions, and then Yoosk tries to contact the public figure in order to answer them – directly, or by trying to include those questions in the interviews this person is regularly assigned to answer.
What’s great about it?
The collaborative way of creating interviews is interesting. And the idea that you can come back later to comment on the answers obtained. The interview becomes more dynamic with the possibility of coming back later to discuss the answers given. The collaboration doesn’t end with getting the answers.
What could be better?
By asking people to suggest who is going to be interviewed and what will then be asked, they are risking not to be able to contact those people. Maybe if they contact people first, and they opened for questions, things would work out better. And faster.
Another point is the broadness of the topics (and area) covered by the website. Do people really want to discuss gossip interviews? Narrowing the audience would be good to get more focused interviews.
Also, it is not so clear what questions are already answered, and what is still under votation. Maybe different colors would help to distinguish.
How is it going to make money?
Once they have content to offer, more people will access, generating page views, what will attract advertisers. So far, it is just a lot of people asking, and almost no answers. So far, there are very few ads, incorporated into the content.
Should I pay it any attention?
The idea is interesting. If it works, it can be used to improve the way collaborative work, at least for interviews, happens.
The voting system and the possibility of allowing people to comment on the answers given make people come back to visit the website often, generating page views, and, more importantly – discussions.
By Gabriela Zago
Share
Sphere: Related Content
December 12th, 2007