daveplantz
- 8 comments
- 0 likes given
- 6 likes received
Bio not provided
This is a nice analysis of social media from a perspective of news. However, from the perspective of public opinion, it was as shallow and pathetic as ever.
Too many people were using the tragedy to validate their world-views or at the very least, writing alternative hypotheses in order to prepare themselves for the onslaught of cognitive dissonance once experts and authorities reveal who's behind it and how they did it.
Apologies for the rant, but it seemed like a lot of people couldn't wait to speculate who's fault this is and how they've always been opposed to the group they've speculated. What happened to listening, learning, and then adjusting our political identities, views, and associations accordingly.
Agree that the whole "apps vs people" thing is PR spin. Honestly, 'Home' doesn't feel like it's designed for me (In my early 30s).
I begin my day with personal things like texts, emails, calendars, tasks, and maybe an app or two. Facebook doesn't come into play until after those things. I'm going to guess there are a lot of people like that. When I was 18, 'Home' would have been everything I needed.
One other criticism, most of my friends and family are not shooting images like the high end DSLR shots FB is using in the home mockups. I have a feeling the cover screen I'd be stuck with, would look grainier and feature a lot of pictures of food, memes, or political crap. Or some advertisement...
I still don't "get" instagram. I turned 30 this year... that must be my problem. ;-)
Radio's "last bastion" is that it's a limited, walled garden with access to the majority of people's cars and stereos utilizing a standard called the public airwaves.
If Radical really wants to "kill" traditional radio, I would suggest that it isn't dumbed-down enough. Easy access to millions of tracks and giving people the ability to talk is not attacking tradition radio's revenue model.
Traditional radio makes money on just a few things: National Talk Radio deals, NFL / NBA / MLB sports deals, heavily researched 20 - 30 song rotations (for contemporary music) or 50 - 60 song rotations (for classic hit music) that contextually tie-in together.
If the goal is to do a modern, legal, and social version of the old Live365, I love what they're doing.
If the goal is to actually kill traditional radio, Radical would do better to let people 'create a format' and limit them to 20 song playlists that can only evolve weekly. Or let them provide their own play-by-play over Lakers games. Or let them add commentary to Rush Limbaugh.
@Marc Chambers I agree but I think we're talking two different things. You're arguing that innovation exists in the media tech world. I agree that it exists. We could probably debate some of your specific examples but I would agree overall.
I'm simply saying that the innovation in media tech on a professional level TODAY, is nowhere near as good as the innovation in media tech on a consumer level. Your average 40 year old can now load HD video for people to see with a cell phone, quicker, than a 40 year old HD television station with a staff of 300. Your average wedding videographer can now look just as good, if not better, than your average network television sitcom. Your average mac owner can produce music that sounds as good as a music producer from 5 years ago in a pro studio.
The lines between consumer-grade and professional-grade have blurred so much that many pros are now choosing what were developed at one point as consumer-grade technology.
Thus, my criticism that "Professional" media technology companies aren't driving the innovation. The consumer companies are.
@alanhuynh There's a big difference between a product with a shelf life like "Game of Thrones" and a product with almost zero shelf life, like news and current events. There's also a difference between "paper plate" products (news, pop music, network sitcoms, direct to DVD movies, etc) and "fine china" products (movies, serial dramas on cable nets, basically anything critically acclaimed and meant to be so). CNN mass produces paper plate products and they do it pretty well. Could they do it more efficiently? Absolutely and they will over time.
But every time a major media outlet, that makes paper plates all day, tries to create a finer piece of china, it often fails. Their current audience, who expects paper plates, isn't interested. The audience that likes fine china, never sees the outlet as a place for quality and doesn't tune in. It's almost impossible for CNN or a media outlet that produces "paper plates" to do anything other than what they do without taking a big revenue hit. It's like asking Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, or Nickelback to do an artsy, innovative, musical concept album. It's not that they couldn't... The Beatles transitioned from teen pop to critical acclaim. But it's risky, difficult, and the people pulling the strings likely won't allow it.
Yes. somebody needs to innovate in television production, but it's going to have to be from the outside. CNN is a news company, not a tech developer, and it's likely they don't have the internal will (at least at a leadership level) to build a truly better product. It's hard to justify staff expansions for "non-priority" things like innovation when everyone else in the industry is laying off people.
Media nets, instead, buy their "innovation" (IE technology and production equipment) from over-priced companies like GrassValley or AVID. But there's no incentive for GV or AVID to innovate because it would hurt their profits. And the one company who did push them all to innovate, Apple, seems to be leaving the professional market (See Final Cut X and likely Logic X).
This is the problem all across the enterprise and professional software world. Consumer-level software is actually better but the companies that do it well, see little monetary incentive to translate that to the professional markets.
@kaimac Apologies... It's not the sole reason, no, but when you know how the sausage is made, you understand why it could happen. And, I make the "vapid nonsense" (which I thought I was clear about) so I'm not trying to be judgey as much as make the point that if the audience was to change their tastes, the directions of these shows would change too.
It's a good letter but your beef should also be with reality tv and the people who watch it.
It's kind of naive to expect anything else from Bravo. They're all about showcasing the exciting / dramatic lives of rich and "aspirational" people (whether housewives or rich people or business owners or entrepreneurs). Think about it. This past year their show Real Housewives basically drove a guy to suicide. They then kept the show going. It's absolutely awful.
People don't even know how this stuff is made. I've made similar shows so I know. They have editor assistants who comb through the footage looking not only for stories, but for quick moments of weird facial expressions, physical movements, or off-hand, out-of-context quotes that could "enhance" a story. Then, they'll replay or mention the pre-assembled controversies for the characters / actors / participants when they go to shoot the "talking head" interviews to get an over-reaction. After they have their four or five necessary controversies for the episode, they bring in a sound designer to work with the producer/editors whose sole job is to create moments of tension (that happen to build prior to commercial break, in order to keep viewers). After that, the show is pretty much done and the process repeats.
The reason these shows seem so petty is because that's all there is that's "exciting" to audiences or tv executives who have creative, final say. Save an "aha" moment, no tv producer will show brainstorm sessions or people simply writing code. You'll likely see those things in the transitional montages between scenes to either show the passage of time or alert the audience of a new setting. So what's left if you don't show the work? Their personal lives... and THAT'S what Bravo wants.
These shows are built around familiar personalities and personality clashes. Silicon Valley is simply the prop in the case of this show. They did a brief show about songwriters and music producers and it was the same thing. Producers and songwriters were ticked because that's not their lives at all.
The sad part is that people enjoy watching sensationalized, superficial garbage.