Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
What do they say it is?

“socialmedian is a social news service that connects people with personalized news and information. socialmedian enables you to easily keep up-to-date on the news that matters to you and to people who share your interests.”

What do I say it is?

Social bookmarking meets RSS reader with a social filtering element.

What’s great about it?

The way it combines the strengths of its influences. The way you can find out more about users. I’m not sure how, but the news mix here seems fresher - or that just might be its early adopter alpha tester user base.

What could be better?

Being in alpha stage, there are bugs. More social connections are desperately needed - I can add a delicious user to my network, why not a socialmedian user? It’s lacking a Great Idea that lifts it above the competition.
How is it going to make money?

The usual suspects would be advertising or a freemium business model. If del.icio.us is any guide, the business model is being bought up by a Big Name.

Should I pay it any attention?

It’s worth a try if you can get an invite (Every Tuesday a new alpha invite code is posted on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/socialmedian), as a useful tool on a personal level. As a business model, it’s not showing anything worth following, yet.

By Paul Bradshaw

Socialmedian - comments invited 

Share

Here is the European news interactivity index. Select a newspaper or country from the drop-down menus and you can compare any two newspapers or countries.

Share

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

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:

1. 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
2. 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)
3. 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?
4. 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

Friction.tv is inviting students to make submissions about international, national and local causes and issues they feel passionate about onto our site. We are an independent website with no affiliations to corporations or media organisations and our cont

Share

"social decision-making tool to help research and make decisions online" What do you think of this one?

Share

an interactive portal of information on Vegas restaurants, sporting events, schools and “everything hyperlocal.”

Share

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

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

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Paul Bradshaw looks at CoverItLive

What do they say it is?

“CoveritLive’s web based software takes your next live blog to a new level. Your commentary publishes in real time like an instant message. Our ‘one-click’ publishing lets you drop polls, videos, pictures, ads and audio clips as soon as they come to mind. Comments and questions from your readers instantly appear but you control what gets published. Try our software for your next live blog. Your readers will love it.”

What do I say it is?

A Twitter-meets-chatroom-meets-poll that you can embed on your site.

What’s great about it?

The combination of different technologies makes for a compelling mix. In particular the comments feature transforms into a chatroom of sorts. Using this to cover JEEcamp I found users were chatting to each other about the event they were following, creating a second level of coverage and discussion. It also enables multiple author coverage (we had four authors posting on separate laptops simultaneously), and more easy and flexible embedding than Twitter. The polls are a nice touch which also enables more dialogue with ‘viewers’, and you can embed video and images.
What could be better?

They are working on searchability, apparently, and have already made it possible to export onto your own site. It has also crashed previously, while embedding may not be simple for everyone (it worked on a Wordpress-hosted site). Tagging and geotagging could be added. Adding images and video could be easier - integration with a live video service such as Qik would make this incredible.

How is it going to make money?

Once they have a foothold, advertising is an obvious option. But more promising would be a ‘freemium’ model where users can pay for extra features. Most likely we’ll see a combination, with the paid-for version being ad-free as well.

Should I pay it any attention?

Very much so. Publishers will find this incredibly useful in covering live events. Entrepreneurs should pay attention to what looks like a potential profit-maker.

Share

Apologies if we go back to the same ’source’ material again. And this time, I’ll give the author his due - Mr Anthony Lilley, take a bow.

But the more I read it, the more gems you find. With the same on-going proviso - that you read it through the eyes of a wood-stainer. For whether by accident or design, it bangs nail after nail on the head.

Or at least gives some great starting points for a discussion.

This baby, for example.

“Our use of media is shifting to find a new balance between the creation and distribution of content as we have known it in the age of mass media and the active participation of citizens.

“We are entering the age of “our media” - where the communication of ideas amongst groups and the sharing of content are at the heart of what’s going on…”

Spot on. The new balance between the distribution of content as we have known it and the active participation of citizens… Very good. Cos that’s new media gold - how to crack that interaction without moderation nut. As it stands, most of us have discovered only new media green on that score.

Am I going to run a messageboard community off www.myfootballwriter.com and spend my life enslaved to a moderating screen as anonymous 14-year-olds from their bedrooms Ipswich have a pop at Norwich…? Er, no.

Not as a responsible publisher with a family-friendly brand to protect. A post for another time, but that tide is on the turn was the feeling from both the floor and the platform of Paul’s JEECamp the other day.

I’d also take a different view in terms of the age of “our media”. No surprise given the fact we’re running www.myfootballwriter.com and www.mylocalwriter.com, but I’d say it was more the age of “my media” - something, you presume, Shane and his myTelegraph set-up would concur with.

This bit is good. Particularly if you insert the word ‘newspaper’ into the mix.

“We already have a splendid system of media distribution using the mass media technologies of television, film, radio and, to some extent, the first generation of the web.

“Indeed, broadband networks have the added effect of improving this environment still further by facilitating access to media on-demand.

“But even this change from a scheduled world of media scarcity to a plentiful world of traditional media available on-demand represents a significant challenge to the assumptions and models of mass media players…

Newspaper hats on and two phrases leap out - “media on-demand” and “a scheduled world of media scarcity“, ie I want my news now and not when the paper-boy deigns to finally show and that “scheduled world”, one that for 400-odd years has been enslaved to the deadlines of a print press. And as such was able to keep media scarce.

And that’s a big, big word in this digital age of ours. Cos if media is scarce then it has a value. Simple supply and demand; keep supply scarce and the demand will push the price up.

To my mind - and that of Clay Shirky - the demand for media is not the problem. Everyone still wants a good read, just as they still want to listen to good music, etc, etc…

It’s the supply side that’s the problem. Media is everywhere. News is instant and universal. And free.

“Traditional media are at the zenith of their powers when they are distributing information and providing entertainment.

“These are powerful human needs; but they are not sufficient for life in the 21st century as the force of globalisation flatten our world. We are not in the information age; that has passed. We’re entering the networked, learning age…”

Sit down with a bank in these current, credit-crunched climate - and I suspect this will apply just as much to TrinityMirror, Archant, the LA Times, etc, etc, as much as it will to me and www.mylocalwriter.com - and that’s our biggest, biggest problem. Proving value.

If I can get this for free, on the web, what’s the value in your newspaper? Or, indeed, your website? Somewhere in all the recent talk of share prices halving, that fundamental thought is going through the minds of the markets. Where’s the value? When media was scarce, yeh, sure I get it… Now it’s everywhere. And costs me nothing. Where’s the value?

Because the ’scarcity of media’ applies just as equally to the distribution of advertising as it does to the distribution of editorial content. For 400-odd years, there was only one local advertising platform in town - and that ad only ever got as far as the furthest paper-boy.

Now we’re in this ‘networked’ age and that ad doesn’t need a paper boy to carry it; advertising ain’t scarce anymore, that’s everywhere too. Where’s the value in that quarter page ad? Heh, and I’ll keep myself in the newspaper boat - where’s the value in that banner ad? What’s so special about you? Where’s your added value?

And for all of us the answer we have to urgently hope lies in that one word - that not only are we in this networked age, but we’re in this “learning” age…

Because if information is everywhere, what it actually means is still - thankfully - quite scarce. Or rather those that actually know what that information means are still quite scarce; those that can add the ‘learning’ to a football score, an on-line police rap sheet, a roadside death in Iraq, and all those other bland, bald pieces of information that don’t come with education attached.

That’s why I look at www.everyblock.com with huge admiration - in all but one, key regard. I want to learn from it, not be informed by it. Information is everywhere; learning isn’t… what do I learn from a hygiene report? A police crime stat? I want the analysis, the colour, the background - and I want it from a source that I respect and trust.

That’s the value.

One night last autumn I discovered I had 24-hours in which to submit my final proposal for this year’s Knight News Challenge; boy was the midnight oil burned.

But in my hour of desperate need, I found a quote from Bill Keller as he warned that for all this explosion of information on the Internet, the supply of reliable news reporting was dwindling.

“What is absent from the vast array of new media outlets is, first and foremost, the great engine of news-gathering - the people who witness events, ferret out information, supply context and explanation.”

There’s your scarcity; there’s your value; there’s our future.

Now explain it to a bank.

Share

£20m sound studio, Five and some large film corporation? Simon Howes on the Eastside blog is hearing rumours and is looking for clarification. (tags: media television eastside digbeth film) Radio 4 - Today - Fierce Festival 2008 Now there’s a media partner I wasn’t expecting. (ta Jez) (tags: fierce bbc radio4 today) Craig Holmes has a new web gallery covering the whole spectrum of his work. Compliments his blog well. (tags: photography craigholmes internet) Q&A with Mark Ball The Fierce

Share