We need a few good encoders!

EpicFU < http://epicfu.com >,  The Uptake < http://theuptake.org >,
Remix America < http://remixamerica.org >, and The Denver Film School
are looking for your help during the two upcoming political
conventions. As we are just days away from the American Political
Olympics, we need volunteers to help us digitize morning political
shows and nightly news programs. This will culminate in a cobranded
nightly newscast with EpicFU, The Uptake, Remix America, The Denver
Film School and YOU!!!! (That's right, we'd add your name to the
list!)

We are looking for people who have DVRs / encoding systems OR Remix
America will buy you an EyeTV or a SageTV box. You must be willing to
capture the political punditry squawking away their play by plays. The
game plan is to have 5 volunteers capture footage, encode it, annotate
it and then upload it to an asset management system for our team of
remixers, editors and citizen journalists.

It is my job to ensure you have a time slot and all of your questions
answered. If you are interested, shoot me an email <
noel@... > or call me at +1.937.218.2422.

You can also refer to this blog post < http://blog.remixamerica.org/?p=341 >

I really hope you can help us, or at least help us find peeps.
noneck
--
let's mashup america @ http://remixamerica.org

"noneck" noel hidalgo | community manager
[ e ] noel(a)remixamerica.org
[ cell / sms ] +1.937.218.2422
[ jabber / aim ] noel[a]noneck.org
[ skype ] nonecknoel

WOOT! WOOT! vbloggers in da house f'ing s'it up! i love it.

I'm in Seattle for Gnomedex this week. I'll be back in the office on Tuesday. If
you really need something, support@... is the one true way.

Cheers,
Sunir Shah, Chief Handshaker, FreshBooks
(416) 481-6946 x224
http://www.freshbooks.com/team/sunir
http://twitter.com/sunir

That's because previously, we didn't have a choice.

If the news told you that Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a building
and that that building was currently on fire, you had no choice but to
believe it.  However, if I go down there and FILM the actual building
with no flames coming from it and only smoke, and then I post that to
the internet for all to see, when they turn on their televisions and
still see images of a building burning, it becomes unbelievable.

Fast forward a year, to today, and we have Qik and other on-the-fly
services, where we can LIVECAST stuff mere seconds after they actually
happen.  So the problem is that there are checks and balances now.
The News isn't the only source of footage or commentary.

Just this morning, I found out that Brian Conley and Jeff Rae were
detained in China YESTERDAY!  That wasn't possible back in the day.
There are too many people with too many eyes on too many things and
too many outlets for immediately getting that information to others
for journalists who specialize in spinning stories to remain credible
if they keep it up.

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@...> wrote:
>
> Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture,
> etc....that holds true...however, I think it was always
> a "spin"...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the
> people who were delivering the news, in whatever form.  Now we have
> all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see,
> unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it.
> Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone away....and
> that's sad...
>
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
> http://heathparks.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
> <billcammack@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes.  I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
> > credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
> > their information to be accepted and absorbed.  This includes the
> > commercials.
> >
> > I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
> > purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
> > subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
> > ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
> > the video wanted to portray.
> >
> > For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits
> actual
> > huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major
> city,
> > they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
> > show.  Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room
> floor.
> >  Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might
> hit
> > the cutting room floor.
> >
> > I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
> > it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
> > surrounded by high-rise buildings.  OR... I could stand inside the
> > park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown,
> and
> > you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I
> > filmed that.
> >
> > So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though
> > there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted
> to "sell"
> > something to an audience.  I'm saying that since it's humans that
> are
> > selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the
> > sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by
> their
> > perception of what they want it to portray.
> >
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://billcammack.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you
> the
> > > information, I think that helps....I do think people at one time
> > > trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etc....I think for a
> variety
> > > of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come
> > > back....hopefully
> > >
> > > Heath
> > > http://batmangeek.com
> > > http://heathparks.com
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
> > > <billcammack@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nothing's believable, really.
> > > >
> > > > Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's
> being
> > > spun
> > > > most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself,
> my
> > > > friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of
> > > pics,
> > > > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed,
> because
> > > I
> > > > didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to
> document
> > > > the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times
> I
> > > had
> > > > and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> > > >
> > > > Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people
> and
> > > have
> > > > 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them
> respond
> > > > negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make,
> the
> > > > final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con',
> making it
> > > > look like the vast majority of people polled responded
> positively.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can
> trust the
> > > > person that created the media or was in charge of Executive
> > > Producing
> > > > it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
> > > >
> > > > <http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-
> how-to-
> > > properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>
> > > >
> > > > Bill Cammack
> > > > http://billcammack.com
> > > >
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think
> it
> > > also
> > > > > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal
> cases,
> > > when
> > > > > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired
> > > results?
> > > > > This is the stuff that scares me about technology,
> especiality
> > > > > digital tech....
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > > > >
> > > > > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of
> Montauk,
> > > N.Y.,
> > > > > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
> > > > > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog
> > > Gawker,
> > > > > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox
> News
> > > > > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly
> this
> > > > > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as
> Discover
> > > > > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that
> had
> > > > > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was
> simply
> > > fake,
> > > > > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media
> had
> > > been
> > > > > duped.
> > > > >
> > > > > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe
> what
> > > > > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week,
> > > Beijing
> > > > > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage"
> and
> > > > > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to
> > > enhance
> > > > > the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month
> > > before
> > > > > that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on
> > > front
> > > > > pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile
> added
> > > to the
> > > > > image�was outed within hours of the photograph's
> > > publication. "With
> > > > > technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to
> be,"
> > > says
> > > > > John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
> > > > > Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been
> stretched in
> > > so
> > > > > many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of
> faith
> > > in
> > > > > us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
> > > > > photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is
> > > > > particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the
> > > photojournalist to
> > > > > tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just
> like
> > > we
> > > > > trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately,
> we're
> > > going
> > > > > to have to develop that same relationship with
> photographers," he
> > > > > says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
> > > > > credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not
> > > doctored
> > > > > photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
> > > > > photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
> > > > >
> > > > > for the rest of the article follow the link
> > > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > > > >
> > > > > Heath
> > > > > http://batmangeek.com
> > > > > http://heathparks.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Dugg!

Another friend of mine, James Powderly, also detained.

For folks who wanna Digg that (also mentions brian and jeff, check
this link:

http://tinyurl.com/6698yo






--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <billcammack@...>
wrote:
>
> BoingBoing reports that Brian Conley & Jeff Rae were detained in
> Beijing yesterday.
>
> Digg link => <http://peaurl.com/4U5Z>
> BoingBoing link =>
> <http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/beijing-alive-in-bag.html>
>
> Good Luck, fellaz.  Safe return home!
>
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
>

Just voted on the "How do you vlog; Script or Scissors?" Poll - I
voted 'Script' but that's not really true.

I would have been better if there was another option "Go wilh the
flow" or "Unscripted & unedited"

I do have a list of 'headings' on a sheet in front of me - like 'crib
notes' but it's not a script.

Likewise I don't edit as I want to keep the limited picture quality as
good as I can - and with 'blip.tv' and I guess other hosts - my .avi
video is transcoded into .flv as is is.

If I did totally mess up I'd just redo the whole thing as my vblog is
usually between 10 to 20 minutes tops.

I new to the group by the way - hope this post is OK - Cheers, daveac

Of course it's subjective of the person taking the video or picture,
etc....that holds true...however, I think it was always
a "spin"...sure there were times, but people expected more out of the
people who were delivering the news, in whatever form.  Now we have
all become so jaded that we seem to always distrust what we see,
unless it fits your own personal view, then you belive it.
Objectivity in all it's forms have seem to have gone away....and
that's sad...

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
<billcammack@...> wrote:
>
> Yes.  I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
> credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
> their information to be accepted and absorbed.  This includes the
> commercials.
>
> I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
> purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
> subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
> ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
> the video wanted to portray.
>
> For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits
actual
> huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major
city,
> they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
> show.  Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room
floor.
>  Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might
hit
> the cutting room floor.
>
> I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
> it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
> surrounded by high-rise buildings.  OR... I could stand inside the
> park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown,
and
> you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I
> filmed that.
>
> So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though
> there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted
to "sell"
> something to an audience.  I'm saying that since it's humans that
are
> selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the
> sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by
their
> perception of what they want it to portray.
>
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote:
> >
> > But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you
the
> > information, I think that helps....I do think people at one time
> > trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etc....I think for a
variety
> > of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come
> > back....hopefully
> >
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> > http://heathparks.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
> > <billcammack@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing's believable, really.
> > >
> > > Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's
being
> > spun
> > > most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> > >
> > > For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself,
my
> > > friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of
> > pics,
> > > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed,
because
> > I
> > > didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to
document
> > > the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times
I
> > had
> > > and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> > >
> > > Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people
and
> > have
> > > 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them
respond
> > > negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make,
the
> > > final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con',
making it
> > > look like the vast majority of people polled responded
positively.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can
trust the
> > > person that created the media or was in charge of Executive
> > Producing
> > > it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
> > >
> > > <http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-
how-to-
> > properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>
> > >
> > > Bill Cammack
> > > http://billcammack.com
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think
it
> > also
> > > > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal
cases,
> > when
> > > > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired
> > results?
> > > > This is the stuff that scares me about technology,
especiality
> > > > digital tech....
> > > >
> > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > > >
> > > > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of
Montauk,
> > N.Y.,
> > > > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
> > > > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog
> > Gawker,
> > > > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox
News
> > > > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly
this
> > > > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as
Discover
> > > > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that
had
> > > > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was
simply
> > fake,
> > > > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media
had
> > been
> > > > duped.
> > > >
> > > > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe
what
> > > > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week,
> > Beijing
> > > > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage"
and
> > > > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to
> > enhance
> > > > the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month
> > before
> > > > that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on
> > front
> > > > pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile
added
> > to the
> > > > image�was outed within hours of the photograph's
> > publication. "With
> > > > technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to
be,"
> > says
> > > > John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
> > > > Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been
stretched in
> > so
> > > > many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of
faith
> > in
> > > > us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
> > > > photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is
> > > > particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the
> > photojournalist to
> > > > tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just
like
> > we
> > > > trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately,
we're
> > going
> > > > to have to develop that same relationship with
photographers," he
> > > > says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
> > > > credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not
> > doctored
> > > > photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
> > > > photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
> > > >
> > > > for the rest of the article follow the link
> > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > > >
> > > > Heath
> > > > http://batmangeek.com
> > > > http://heathparks.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

BoingBoing reports that Brian Conley & Jeff Rae were detained in
Beijing yesterday.

Digg link => <http://peaurl.com/4U5Z>
BoingBoing link =>
<http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/beijing-alive-in-bag.html>

Good Luck, fellaz.  Safe return home!

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

I agree with the comments on considering the source and hopefully
their reputation is deserved. Basically the video, or media, itself is
not to be trusted, its the source that makes the video to be believed.
Here's an example of an easily faked set of pictures that I trusted
due to the source. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4288772.stm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Caleb J. Clark
~ Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com
~ "The problem with communication is the assumption it has been
accomplished." - G. B. Shaw.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If you're using WordPress, I would highly recommend the SimplePress forum
Plugin. I use it on my won site below...

http://indielab.org
http://wordpressmodder.org

On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:29 PM, "Lil Peck" <lilpeck@...> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:46 PM, ractalfece <john@...> wrote:

> So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I
> should be using to run a private forum. Ideally, I'd like to
> pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for
> friends. But if I don't know you, then you get hassled.
>
>

If you're using a Windows Server Host, Snitz Forums are pretty good (ASP).



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:46 PM, ractalfece <john@...> wrote:

> So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I
> should be using to run a private forum. Ideally, I'd like to
> pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for
> friends. But if I don't know you, then you get hassled.
>
>

If you're using a Windows Server Host, Snitz Forums are pretty good (ASP).

This is done entirely in green screen. Check out the old, evil wizard
guy. He's not real. He is a virtual person. With piranha teeth. LOL
If you like dragons please check it out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qt5JOgiHk

Thanks!

Sheila

Thanks for the advice, Kent.

Hey, if it's any consolation, I wish you all the success in the world.
  I hope you become governor of California. Then my new video,
Information Dystopia, will surely become a cult fave.

- john@... -


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Nichols"
<digitalfilmmaker@...> wrote:
>
> Ning.com  And you can make flash only vids that are private.
>
> -Kent, still part of the problem
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <john@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everybody,
> >
> > I'm planning to continue making vulgar "comedy" videos for YouTube.
> > But I also want to have a place to share videos that are more serious.
> >  I don't want one thousand assholes writing comments like, "sorry
> > dude, you used to be funny."
> >
> > I want to distribute torrents and have some community around them.
> > I'm thinking a forum would be the best way to go.
> >
> > So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I
> > should be using to run a private forum.  Ideally, I'd like to
> > pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for
> > friends.  But if I don't know you, then you get hassled.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John TotalVOM.
> >
>

Ning.com  And you can make flash only vids that are private.

-Kent, still part of the problem

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <john@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I'm planning to continue making vulgar "comedy" videos for YouTube.
> But I also want to have a place to share videos that are more serious.
>  I don't want one thousand assholes writing comments like, "sorry
> dude, you used to be funny."
>
> I want to distribute torrents and have some community around them.
> I'm thinking a forum would be the best way to go.
>
> So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I
> should be using to run a private forum.  Ideally, I'd like to
> pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for
> friends.  But if I don't know you, then you get hassled.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John TotalVOM.
>

SO ... I bought a Canon GL-2 recently and they had a $250 rebate offer
(cool!) ... So the check finally came yesterday .. I had the damn thing
spent within a couple of hours ;-)  .. (talk about burning a hole in my
pocket)

I wanted some sort of external mic for the GL-2 such as a shotgun .. but ..
I went with the Rode Stereo Video Mic .. and, guess what, the price was
$249.00 with free shipping!  All the reviews I've seen were very positive on
this mic, and I like that the outdoor wind-muff was included (the
"dead-cat")

The SVM is not a shotgun type of mic, but it seems to be a major step up
from any internal mic. It *is* stereo, unlike many shotgun mics. Also, as I
understand it, the SVM actually has better cancellation of low freqs from
the back and side than many "shotgun" mics.

I should be here tomorrow :-))

Richard Amirault
Boston, MA, USA
http://n1jdu.org
http://bostonfandom.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ

Dear videoblogging community:

This message is an invitation to participate in the 100 Second Film Festival
for 2008 -2009.

We are launching a Call for Entries through our **new** website:
http://100seconds.org

I'd like to invite you to get involved in any way you can.

Submit a video, spread the word, create your own festival.


Share a new video with the festival by tagging it upon upload with
"100seconds"

Email an existing URL to 100seconds@...

*Deadline for entries is November 15.*



Thanks,
Jason Daniels


********************************************************************************\
************************
The 100 Second Film Festival in a non competitive, non commercial universal
collaboration.
Our objective is to stimulate people to create, watch and share videos (that
are 100 seconds or less in duration).
The entire project is fueled by the Creative Commons.
http://100seconds.org
********************************************************************************\
************************


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This might help.



http://www.jimkukral.com/learn-how-to-start-your-own-online-forum/



Jim



From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of ractalfece
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:47 PM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Forum software.



Hello Everybody,

I'm planning to continue making vulgar "comedy" videos for YouTube.
But I also want to have a place to share videos that are more serious.
I don't want one thousand assholes writing comments like, "sorry
dude, you used to be funny."

I want to distribute torrents and have some community around them.
I'm thinking a forum would be the best way to go.

So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I
should be using to run a private forum. Ideally, I'd like to
pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for
friends. But if I don't know you, then you get hassled.

Thanks,

John TotalVOM.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1620 - Release Date: 8/19/2008
6:04 AM



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Everybody,

I'm planning to continue making vulgar "comedy" videos for YouTube.
But I also want to have a place to share videos that are more serious.
  I don't want one thousand assholes writing comments like, "sorry
dude, you used to be funny."

I want to distribute torrents and have some community around them.
I'm thinking a forum would be the best way to go.

So I'm wondering if anybody knows which open source forum software I
should be using to run a private forum.  Ideally, I'd like to
pre-approve email addresses, so there isn't much hassle to sign up for
friends.  But if I don't know you, then you get hassled.

Thanks,

John TotalVOM.

"A" new media website? :D  Sounds rather headhunterish... not that
there's anything wrong with that, haha.

Perhaps a google search for "Video Editor Resume" would turn something
up =>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=1183&fsdt=3946&q=video+editor+resume&btn\
G=Google+Search>

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Sean McManus" <sean@...> wrote:
>
> A new media website in New York is looking for video editors to
combine our
> content (interviews with experts and thought leaders) with
> contemporary/sophisticated music and images to create 1-2 minute videos.
> Some will be used for promotional purposes, others will be used to
create
> knowledge-driven mini documentaries. Samples of your work and
availability
> is requested for review. Please email: scmcmanus@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

A new media website in New York is looking for video editors to combine our
content (interviews with experts and thought leaders) with
contemporary/sophisticated music and images to create 1-2 minute videos.
Some will be used for promotional purposes, others will be used to create
knowledge-driven mini documentaries. Samples of your work and availability
is requested for review. Please email: scmcmanus@....


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes.  I agree that the person who delivers the information has to be
credible and considered honest by the viewers if the station wants
their information to be accepted and absorbed.  This includes the
commercials.

I suppose my point is that even if you take what appears to be the
purest form of video... a live, unedited stream... it's still
subjective and contingent upon human decision-making, so it always
ends up being a reflection of what the person in charge of releasing
the video wanted to portray.

For instance, if a film crew takes a trip to Africa and visits actual
huts in villages, yet they actually STAYED in a hotel in a major city,
they're going to cut the video to represent whatever they wanted to
show.  Shots inside the plush hotels might hit the cutting room floor.
  Shots of the huts with the city's skyline as the background might hit
the cutting room floor.

I could go film in Central Park right now, and depending on how I do
it, you wouldn't know it was in the middle of New York City,
surrounded by high-rise buildings.  OR... I could stand inside the
park and frame my shot so ONLY the high-rise buildings are shown, and
you wouldn't have any idea that I was standing inside a park when I
filmed that.

So I'm not saying that everything's deliberately tainted, though
there's certainly a lot of content that IS purposely crafted to "sell"
something to an audience.  I'm saying that since it's humans that are
selecting the footage and essentially CREATING the story from the
sights and sounds, the final product is going to be affected by their
perception of what they want it to portray.

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@...> wrote:
>
> But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the
> information, I think that helps....I do think people at one time
> trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etc....I think for a variety
> of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come
> back....hopefully
>
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
> http://heathparks.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
> <billcammack@> wrote:
> >
> > Nothing's believable, really.
> >
> > Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being
> spun
> > most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
> >
> > For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
> > friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of
> pics,
> > you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because
> I
> > didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to document
> > the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times I
> had
> > and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
> >
> > Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people and
> have
> > 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond
> > negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the
> > final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it
> > look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the
> > person that created the media or was in charge of Executive
> Producing
> > it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
> >
> > <http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-how-to-
> properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>
> >
> > Bill Cammack
> > http://billcammack.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it
> also
> > > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases,
> when
> > > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired
> results?
> > > This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality
> > > digital tech....
> > >
> > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > >
> > > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk,
> N.Y.,
> > > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
> > > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog
> Gawker,
> > > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News
> > > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this
> > > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover
> > > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had
> > > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply
> fake,
> > > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had
> been
> > > duped.
> > >
> > > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what
> > > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week,
> Beijing
> > > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and
> > > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to
> enhance
> > > the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month
> before
> > > that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on
> front
> > > pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile added
> to the
> > > image�was outed within hours of the photograph's
> publication. "With
> > > technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be,"
> says
> > > John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
> > > Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in
> so
> > > many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith
> in
> > > us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
> > > photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is
> > > particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the
> photojournalist to
> > > tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like
> we
> > > trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're
> going
> > > to have to develop that same relationship with photographers," he
> > > says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
> > > credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not
> doctored
> > > photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
> > > photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
> > >
> > > for the rest of the article follow the link
> > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> > >
> > > Heath
> > > http://batmangeek.com
> > > http://heathparks.com
> > >
> >
>

Hi Everyone,

I used to have faith in reporters, whether they be print or photographic.  Now
that I've had experience in so much of life, I don't trust them any farther than
I can throw them.  I have yet to read something in a newspaper that is actually
accurate when I know the background on the story first hand.

Granted many of the journalists may be busy with a heavy work load and a
multitude of projects, but often I smell laziness when I see reporters working
right in front of me.

Whether they are trying their best or not, it burns me when I see news media
outlets claim accuracy.  It's usually a dead giveaway that they're not.

  Till Later,

John Esberg
JohnEsberg.com



----- Original Message ----
From: Heath <heathparks@...>
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:32:48 PM
Subject: [videoblogging] Do you trust what you see?


Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it also
applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases, when
does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired results?
This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality
digital tech....

http://www.newsweek .com/id/152989

When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, N.Y.,
in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog Gawker,
local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News
quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this
unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover
Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had
decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply fake,
a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had been
duped.

The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what
they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, Beijing
organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and
computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to enhance
the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month before
that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on front
pages across the globe. The alteration—an extra missile added to the
image—was outed within hours of the photograph's publication. "With
technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be," says
John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in so
many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith in
us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
photojournalism' s credibility but doesn't think the future is
particularly gloomy—it just puts the burden on the photojournalist to
tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like we
trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're going
to have to develop that same relationship with photographers, " he
says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not doctored
photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:

for the rest of the article follow the link
http://www.newsweek .com/id/152989

Heath
http://batmangeek. com
http://heathparks. com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But if you know what the spin is or the person who is giving you the
information, I think that helps....I do think people at one time
trusted certain, newspeople, newspaper's etc....I think for a variety
of reasons that trust is going away, but I do think it can come
back....hopefully

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack"
<billcammack@...> wrote:
>
> Nothing's believable, really.
>
> Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being
spun
> most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.
>
> For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
> friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of
pics,
> you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because
I
> didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to document
> the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times I
had
> and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.
>
> Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people and
have
> 10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond
> negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the
> final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it
> look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively.
>
> Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the
> person that created the media or was in charge of Executive
Producing
> it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.
>
> <http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-how-to-
properly-color-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>
>
> Bill Cammack
> http://billcammack.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it
also
> > applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases,
when
> > does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired
results?
> > This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality
> > digital tech....
> >
> > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> >
> > When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk,
N.Y.,
> > in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
> > photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog
Gawker,
> > local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News
> > quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this
> > unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover
> > Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had
> > decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply
fake,
> > a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had
been
> > duped.
> >
> > The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what
> > they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week,
Beijing
> > organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and
> > computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to
enhance
> > the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month
before
> > that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on
front
> > pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile added
to the
> > image�was outed within hours of the photograph's
publication. "With
> > technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be,"
says
> > John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
> > Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in
so
> > many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith
in
> > us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
> > photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is
> > particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the
photojournalist to
> > tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like
we
> > trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're
going
> > to have to develop that same relationship with photographers," he
> > says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
> > credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not
doctored
> > photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
> > photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
> >
> > for the rest of the article follow the link
> > http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
> >
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> > http://heathparks.com
> >
>

Hi Milt!

Statistics show that releasing a novel one chapter at a time does not
harm sales when you finally bundle it to sell in full. In some cases
it actually helps the sales. I was just on a panel called Digital
Bundling for BEA (Book Expo America) and we discussed these topics
specifically.

I think selling a DVD of your accumulated material is good idea. Try
it out and see how it goes! You can always make it "for a limited time
only" in case it proves to be more trouble than it is worth.

What might be interesting to try, and perhaps this is something I
could bring up to the ADM (Association of Downloadable Media), is a
list of quality content providers that are grouped according to target
audience, genre and/or synopsis, then advertise those shows to ad
agencies, video sites, out-of-home markets, etc. as package deals.
Sell seasons, advertise for sponsors, etc. all in one area so people
can go there and shop for shows. Or, perhaps there's something like
that out there already and I don't know about it?

For me, I would totally be up for paying for sponsorship or for a
season of a good, quality show that has anything to do with books,
comics, reading or literacy. I just don't know where to go to find
those shows. But it would be great to have a new line up for my
Reader's Entertainment TV site.

Just typing out loud. ;-)

Sheila

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Milt Lee" <milt@...> wrote:

> My wife is a novelist, and is toying with the idea of publishing one
> of her novels - one chapter at time, with the option of somebody
> paying to download the whole thing all at once.
>
> I have thought of bundling 90 minutes of my Real REZ pieces into a DVD
> to sell, or people can watch them one at a time for free.
> Milt Lee
>

Nothing's believable, really.

Even if information isn't being deliberately altered, it's being spun
most of the time for the sake of making some particular point.

For instance, when I take pictures, I take pictures of myself, my
friends and my acquaintances.  Therefore, if you see the set of pics,
you get an impression of the party or meetup that's skewed, because I
didn't take pictures of everyone there.  My goal wasn't to document
the party, objectively.  My goal was to document the good times I had
and the people I had them with.  So it's basically a spin.

Same thing with news reporting.  You can interview 20 people and have
10 of them respond positively to something and ten of them respond
negatively, and depending on what point you're trying to make, the
final video has 5 people 'pro' and only one person 'con', making it
look like the vast majority of people polled responded positively.

Unfortunately, you can't trust media any more than you can trust the
person that created the media or was in charge of Executive Producing
it and signing off on it before it goes out the door.

<http://billcammack.com/2008/03/06/295-reelsolidtv-s03-ep013-how-to-properly-col\
or-correct-a-presidential-candidate/>

Bill Cammack
http://billcammack.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it also
> applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases, when
> does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired results?
> This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality
> digital tech....
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
>
> When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, N.Y.,
> in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
> photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog Gawker,
> local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News
> quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this
> unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover
> Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had
> decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply fake,
> a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had been
> duped.
>
> The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what
> they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, Beijing
> organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and
> computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to enhance
> the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month before
> that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on front
> pages across the globe. The alteration�an extra missile added to the
> image�was outed within hours of the photograph's publication. "With
> technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be," says
> John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
> Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in so
> many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith in
> us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
> photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is
> particularly gloomy�it just puts the burden on the photojournalist to
> tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like we
> trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're going
> to have to develop that same relationship with photographers," he
> says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
> credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not doctored
> photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
> photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:
>
> for the rest of the article follow the link
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989
>
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
> http://heathparks.com
>

Interesting article today about photojournalism, but I think it also
applies to video as well.  I always think about criminal cases, when
does someone alter a digital photo to achive their desired results?
This is the stuff that scares me about technology, especiality
digital tech....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989

When a mysterious creature washed up on the shores of Montauk, N.Y.,
in late July, it became an instant media sensation. After the
photograph of the Montauk Monster ran on Manhattan media blog Gawker,
local Long Island newspapers were on the story. CNN and Fox News
quickly followed, hosting experts to hash out what exactly this
unrecognizeable being was. Perhaps a bloated raccoon, as Discover
Magazine claimed and Jeff Corwin told Fox? A dead dog that had
decayed for weeks? Or, the latest spin: The creature was simply fake,
a prop in a movie's viral marketing campaign, and the media had been
duped.

The public's skepticism over whether or not they can believe what
they see in photographs isn't unwarranted. Just last week, Beijing
organizers admitted to using "previously recorded footage" and
computerized images during the Olympic opening ceremony to enhance
the quality of fireworks for broadcast on television. A month before
that, a doctored photograph of Iranian missiles turned up on front
pages across the globe. The alteration—an extra missile added to the
image—was outed within hours of the photograph's publication. "With
technology, you can make the moment anything you want it to be," says
John Long, the ethics committee chair for the National Press
Photographers Association. "Our credibility has been stretched in so
many ways, so I don't think the public has a great deal of faith in
us." He admits the past year hasn't been the best for
photojournalism's credibility but doesn't think the future is
particularly gloomy—it just puts the burden on the photojournalist to
tell the truth, rather than on the photograph itself. "Just like we
trust the reporter to represent what they see accurately, we're going
to have to develop that same relationship with photographers," he
says. NEWSWEEK's Sarah Kliff spoke with Long about why the
credibility of photojournalism has fallen, whether or not doctored
photographs are more likely to get caught these days, and how
photographers can reclaim the public's trust. Excerpts:

for the rest of the article follow the link
http://www.newsweek.com/id/152989

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

One of the questions that we deal with all the time is "do you want
your work out there so people can see it, or are you content to make
something and then let it sit in you computer?"

My wife is a novelist, and is toying with the idea of publishing one
of her novels - one chapter at time, with the option of somebody
paying to download the whole thing all at once.

I have thought of bundling 90 minutes of my Real REZ pieces into a DVD
to sell, or people can watch them one at a time for free.

We don't want to be stopped by the gatekeepers from ever expressing
ourselves.  The reality is that somethings that are put out there are
actually good, and deserve to be seen, and if you stop putting them
out there, then the commercial forces have basically co-opted your
creative urge - a terrible thing.

Milt Lee

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "trine bjørkmann berry"
<trine.berry@...> wrote:
>
> For the record;
>
> Knut Hamsun (and his character in Hunger, incidentally) both had to
> 'deal with people'. The character in Hunger spends much of his time
> trying desperately to get paid, and - ironically perhaps - finds that
> when he does get paid, he can no longer work.
>

Yes.  Hamsun and the character had to deal with people.  But he wasn't
getting millions of views of "Hunger" without compensation.  There are
many pitfalls of fame and power.  Maybe those pitfalls are worse than
fame and poverty, as Hamsun's political meddlings suggest.

> Hamsun was a much admired author in Norway until he started meddling
> in politics and made himself incredibly unpopular. He even received
> the Nobel Price for literature, luckily, perhaps, before the
> aforementioned meddling in politics left him with fewer friends among
> the so-called norwegian cultural elite (contradiction in terms, I
> know... ;-))
>
> Trine
>
>
>
> On 8/9/08, ractalfece <john@...> wrote:
> > I see the philosophical difference.  I understand starving for art.
> > Knut Hamsun's "Hunger".  Great book.  But here's the difference
> > between Knut and me.  I'm starving and dealing with people.  Why
> > should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation?
> >
> > I don't.  That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to
> > see my work without paying.
> >
> > - john@... -
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jen Proctor" <proctorjen@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times.  I could go into the
> >> financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't
> >> think that's the point.  I don't think the hardship of living out
of a
> >> car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within
> >> commodity culture.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity
> >> culture.  That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is
> >> right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I
> >> just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the
> >> individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or,
> >> ultimately, a viable solution.
> >>
> >> It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever
> >> is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your
> > work.
> >>
> >> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <john@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as
> > much as
> >> > > I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work,
whether
> >> > > through public funding or individual donations, as requested
in the
> >> > > video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for
> >> > > compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The
> > situation we
> >> > > are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying
> > to make
> >> > > money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater
> > revolution of
> >> > > the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from
commodity
> >> > > culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's "7 Days
in a
> >> > Sentra" ad campaign.
> >> >
> >> > Mark Horriblewitz's video:
> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI
> >> >
> >> > My response:
> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0
> >> >
> >> > Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture.
> >> >
> >> > - john@ -
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------
> trine.berry@...
> trine.blogs.com
> henrikisak.blogspot.com
> twitter.com/trine
>

For the record;

Knut Hamsun (and his character in Hunger, incidentally) both had to
'deal with people'. The character in Hunger spends much of his time
trying desperately to get paid, and - ironically perhaps - finds that
when he does get paid, he can no longer work.

Hamsun was a much admired author in Norway until he started meddling
in politics and made himself incredibly unpopular. He even received
the Nobel Price for literature, luckily, perhaps, before the
aforementioned meddling in politics left him with fewer friends among
the so-called norwegian cultural elite (contradiction in terms, I
know... ;-))

Trine



On 8/9/08, ractalfece <john@...> wrote:
> I see the philosophical difference.  I understand starving for art.
> Knut Hamsun's "Hunger".  Great book.  But here's the difference
> between Knut and me.  I'm starving and dealing with people.  Why
> should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation?
>
> I don't.  That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to
> see my work without paying.
>
> - john@... -
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jen Proctor" <proctorjen@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times.  I could go into the
>> financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't
>> think that's the point.  I don't think the hardship of living out of a
>> car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within
>> commodity culture.
>>
>> I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity
>> culture.  That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is
>> right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I
>> just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the
>> individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or,
>> ultimately, a viable solution.
>>
>> It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever
>> is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your
> work.
>>
>> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <john@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as
> much as
>> > > I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether
>> > > through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the
>> > > video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for
>> > > compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The
> situation we
>> > > are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying
> to make
>> > > money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater
> revolution of
>> > > the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity
>> > > culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's "7 Days in a
>> > Sentra" ad campaign.
>> >
>> > Mark Horriblewitz's video:
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI
>> >
>> > My response:
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0
>> >
>> > Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture.
>> >
>> > - john@ -
>> >
>>
>
>
>


--
--------------------------------
trine.berry@...
trine.blogs.com
henrikisak.blogspot.com
twitter.com/trine

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "taulpaulmpls"
<taulpaulmpls@...> wrote:
>
> Agreed Jon,
>
> The example I pointed out was vague terminology.  The real
> conversation was much more specific when we asked the content creator
> what they were willing, and not willing to do.  When that was agreed
> upon, the pricing was a separate issue.
>
> Another great point you made, and I agree with, is that every content
> creator has a different set of standards for partnerships with
> sponsors (advertisers), and each will be willing or not willing to do
> certain things.  (i.e. endorsements may not be ok, but placement
> scripted into the video may be just fine) That gives the creator
> freedom to make that choice.
>
> I remember this guy who was doing videos when I first started in this
> group.  He was hunting for Civil War relics on battlefields in the
> south.  His videos showed him using a metal detector, how to look for
> these types of artifacts, and how to identify the artifacts.  I had
> little interest in this type of hobby, but the content was consistent,
> and I could see the benefit for enthusiasts in this area.  I believe
> this example went into the long tail, and I saw multiple opportunities
> for sponsorship, if he chose to go that direction.
>


Dear Paul,

How can you talk about "multiple opportunities for sponsorship" when
you do not believe in the thing you are "sponsoring"?

I am aware Civil War enthusiasm has turned into a cottage industry and
the marketers are paying attention to us now.

And while I appreciate your vulture advice, I hope you don't take this
the wrong way when I tell you to buzz off.  If I accepted
"sponsorships" from outside of the historical community, it would
change the very nature of what I am doing.  No longer would I be
serving this community, instead I would be serving the sponsors who
quite frankly, I do not believe care one lick about the Civil War.
Your statement that you have no interest in the "hobby" only
reinforces this belief.

I know you think sponsorships will help make my program more
accessible.  You believe accessibility and an expanded audience to be
a good thing.  But how far will it go?  I have no doubt I could
deliver millions of viral views if I showed my buttcrack while loading
a musket. Paul!  You do not understand this "hobby"!  And you do not
understand the importance of things!

The small, yet enthusiastic, audience are the reason my "consistent
content" exists in the first place.  And I will not let your
commercial schemes alienate them.

Thank you,
Buzz off,

- civilwar@... -






> Thanks for your feedback Jon,
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <john@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with
> > > online content creators.  I've been in the community for 4
years, and
> > > sometimes I don't know where to start.  Networks like Rev3 and NNN,
> > > have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content
> > > creators will never work with them.  There's just a shitload of
> > > content out there.  I've approached a couple content creators about
> > > sponsorship.  I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*.
> > >
> >
> > I'll explain why you're getting crickets.
> >
> > The word sponsorship summons up this glorious relationship where the
> > sponsor gives money because they believe in the cause or the work.
> >
> > Take "Where The Hell Is Matt?"
> >
> > http://wherethehellismatt.com/
> >
> > Scroll down to the bottom and in the left hand corner you'll see a
> > tiny image for "Stride".
> >
> > From the Where The Hell is Matt? FAQ:
> >
> > BEGIN FAQ
> >
> > Did they make you chew gum on your trip?
> >
> > They didn't make me do much of anything. They are very good people.
> >
> > Did they tell you where to go?
> >
> > Nope. They said, and I'm quoting here:
> >
> > "We like what you're doing. We want to help you. We don't want to mess
> > with you."
> >
> > These words charmed me, and they stayed true to them.
> >
> > Did they edit the video for you?
> >
> > Nope. I came home, put it together, sorted the music out, and slapped
> > it up on the internet. That was pretty much it.
> >
> > Like I said: good people.
> >
> > Do you get lots of free gum?
> >
> > I get lots of free gum.
> >
> > How did you find them?
> >
> > They found me.
> >
> > END FAQ.
> >
> > That is real sponsorship.
> >
> > Now do you see how absurd it is to ask how much creators charge for
> > sponsorship?  It's like asking, how much would it cost me to give you
> > money because I believe in what you're doing?
> >
> > It sounds like what you're really asking is, "how much does it cost to
> > put a commercial on your broadcast?"  Or maybe you're asking, "how
> > much for your endorsement?"  Or maybe you're asking "how much does it
> > cost to have endorsements made for my product and run on your
> > broadcast?"  And that's fine.  Just use the correct words and maybe it
> > won't be so confusing for people.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look
for in a
> > > video content creator.  We'll even talk niche, and long tail for
> > > people that don't get a bazillion views on youtube.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1979?return=%2Fideas%2Findex%2F3%2Fq%3Abo\
lin
> > >
> > > It won't happen overnight.
> > >
> > > The way I see it, we're all marketers, we're just pushing different
> > > things.
> > >
> >
> > I've heard of the "long tail of books" and "the long tail of DVDs and
> > CDs" and the "long tail of online media".  But maybe we're not talking
> > about multiple tails.  Maybe it's all one tail.  You've got Amazon's
> > most obscure products sitting out at the very tiniest tip of the
> > Amazon tail and once you step off, you're on a new tail of stuff made
> > just for the web with no hopes (or false hopes) of breaking into
> > traditional (or subculture) media markets.  And when you get to the
> > edge of that tail, then you're stepping into communication.  Videos
> > about someone's wedding anniversary posted to youtube for friends and
> > family.  A myspace blog from a teenager chronicling teenager shit for
> > her teenager friends.  And then after that tail, you'll find private
> > communication between individuals, email, phone calls, etc.
> >
> > When we talk about advertising this far out on the tail, it's creepy
> > science fiction stuff.  But I'm not worried about it.
> >
> > The market will correct itself, right?
> >
> > BURST!  You disgusting web 2.0 bubble!  BURST!
> >
> > - john@ -
> >
>