Recently, as in today I found a troubling article in the SF Chronicle about Mayor Gavin Newsom's free Wi-Fi plan to accomadate all citizens far and wide, rich and poor. The "free" network, which was supposed to be built by EarthLink, who just announced yesterday it was pulling out of the deal due to financial difficulties. Interesting, maybe thats why EarthLink just announced it was laying off 900 employees.
This looks bad all around the country, not just in San Francisco. Anchorage and Chicago just canceled their plans to attempt to build a free Wi-Fi network in their cities as well. Conviently their networks were also supposed to be built by EarthLink. The doom sayers are apparently out in force because the system does not seem "financially viable."
To me what doesn't seem financially viable is the company EarthLink. Google won a bid in San Francisco to build the network and test out new products, why then give the entire project to EarthLink, a company that is spread so thin you can practically see through it. I understand the Google-EarthLink connection but why specifically them. If Google is so interested in testing new products and advertising techniques why not pay for it completely out of pocket? Why didn't Mayor Newsom realize that Google's Earthlink wasn't financially viable and either not award them the contract or begin looking in other directions?
Instead of blaming the proposed system of free Wi-Fi within cities people should start looking at other viable options. Maybe Google and its little brother companies aren't the answer. Besides, the network system Google was pushing was to be paid partially by advertising revenue (nothing new in America) and partially by a faster, better tier of service that subscribers would have to pay $21.95 a month for.
It seems that to make this net work you could feasibly keep the second, higher tier of service for a monthly fee and add a tax on the citizens that live within the city limits. Or possibly add a tax to multi-million (if not billion) dollar companies located in San Francisco's downtown district. After all it is titled the Financial District. This, it seems would easily net enough money to pay for a free municipal Wi-Fi network that could be accessed anywhere.
No doubt the companies will not adhere to a tax, because, well they usually don't. There are plenty of other ways to get this Wi-Fi network built in San Francisco and other cities without Google and without Earthlink. I do believe in the end it could and will be finanacially viable for companies to invest in. Especially if they have control over advertising content and reach.
Just because a few companies can't hold their accounts in the black doesn't mean that free city wide municipal Wi-Fi is a failing option that can never get off the ground.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
White Space and Unlicensed usage
Well ladies and gentleman after a long nearly three month Summer vacation hiatus from all things writing I'm back to continue what I started for a college course last semester. While I am not entirely pleased with my lack of content throughout the summer months I am not taking full responsibility for it. Some things which I will call life happen and must be dealt with accordingly before any other activity can take place. So with no further ado...
An interesting debate has been on-going since 2002 involving "white space" found in the spectrum between broadcast television channels. The white space is there to keep channels located on the spectrum next to each other from creating interference and potentially making the channel un-viewable for the viewer.
In a recently written article titled White Space Debate Rages it seems companies such as Google, EarthLink, Dell, Intel, and Microsoft have created what they call the "White Space Coalition" to lobby the FCC for unlicensed use of these spaces in between, in hopes of creating more broadband competition.
Obviously television broadcasters are opposed to such an idea because they say there is still too many interference issues. A total of 15 to 20 percent of the American public still get their television over the air and the potential interference would be to much.
When the government mandated switch from analog to all digital happens in Feb. of 2009 the 700 Mhz will be auctioned off, leaving a significant portion of it empty, including the white space. Market competitors think this is a great opportunity for wireless broadband companies to grab it up and combine it with their already in place networks. The 700 Mhz band of spectrum is especially valuable because it travels farther and has a better propensity to travel through walls and other obstacles.
Broadcast television companies are lobbying for the FCC to wait until the transfer from analog to digital is complete before potentially allowing unlicensed use of these white spaces. In a report released by the FCC on Aug. 1st with the test results of the first potential white space prototype that will detect signals from occupied channels, so as not to interfere with them the FCC slammed the device. Microsoft, the builder of said device has charged that prototype A was broken already and prototype B, which Microsoft tested on it's own in front of the FCC performed at 100 percent.
I agree with the White Space Coalition on this one, wasted spectrum is dead spectrum. Officially the public still owns the spectrum and I see no reason to deny the usage of unlicensed white space areas to new, or small wireless broadband companies trying to find a niche in an increasingly competitive and closed off market. Besides in urban areas these white spaces are very small and by themselves do not offer enough spectrum to viably compete with any company already established. While I do agree that channel interference would be a huge negative and should not be allowed to happen, this option needs to explored further before decided on. Especially if the coalition is already putting money up front to explore and build devices that can operate within the white spaces. This doesn't seem any different then a pirate radio station securing a small amount of bandwidth to broadcast from. If interference is the only issue, it seems the white spaces should be used.
In Other News:
Politics Meets Mobile Technology
This is just another step in on-going direction of peer-to-peer and digital technology interweaving itself in life. Democratic presidential hopefuls have begun using text messaging to garner support in areas where the candidates will be campaigning soon. This effort headed By John Edwards involves sending text messages to his campaign and receiving updates as well as phone calls from Edwards if the phone user texts back "call." Barrack Obama has started allowing supporters to text the numbers that spell out his last name and include in the text a question regarding just about anything. This idea seems revolutionary now but in the grand scheme of things was just the logical next step in the process. Text messaging can be used to a great degree when trying to gather people in one geographical location such as a city, or county and should just become another media tool in the arsenal of candidates.
Media critic Solomon pushes limits of fair-use in new documentary
Norman Solomon is about to release a documentary titled "War Made Easy." It documents presidential administrations going back 40 years and their use of the media to galvanize public opinion on war. On the surface it appears to be a scathing assessment of the current administrations usage of the media in the run-up to the Iraq war. But as the film moves through it uses tons of clips and footage from television news to show exactly how the media has been toyed with. The lining behind this is simple, in an age where some media companies are trying to increase control over their content this documentary tests the limits of fair use. Which is protected under copyright laws. Many media companies are actually allowing content to be used on sites such as Youtube, or even personal blogs, but many of these companies have limitations, or at the least guidelines on how such content can be used. Give Solomon credit for scoring a double hit with this documentary for democracy. In the realm of politics and in the realm of copyright.
An interesting debate has been on-going since 2002 involving "white space" found in the spectrum between broadcast television channels. The white space is there to keep channels located on the spectrum next to each other from creating interference and potentially making the channel un-viewable for the viewer.
In a recently written article titled White Space Debate Rages it seems companies such as Google, EarthLink, Dell, Intel, and Microsoft have created what they call the "White Space Coalition" to lobby the FCC for unlicensed use of these spaces in between, in hopes of creating more broadband competition.
Obviously television broadcasters are opposed to such an idea because they say there is still too many interference issues. A total of 15 to 20 percent of the American public still get their television over the air and the potential interference would be to much.
When the government mandated switch from analog to all digital happens in Feb. of 2009 the 700 Mhz will be auctioned off, leaving a significant portion of it empty, including the white space. Market competitors think this is a great opportunity for wireless broadband companies to grab it up and combine it with their already in place networks. The 700 Mhz band of spectrum is especially valuable because it travels farther and has a better propensity to travel through walls and other obstacles.
Broadcast television companies are lobbying for the FCC to wait until the transfer from analog to digital is complete before potentially allowing unlicensed use of these white spaces. In a report released by the FCC on Aug. 1st with the test results of the first potential white space prototype that will detect signals from occupied channels, so as not to interfere with them the FCC slammed the device. Microsoft, the builder of said device has charged that prototype A was broken already and prototype B, which Microsoft tested on it's own in front of the FCC performed at 100 percent.
I agree with the White Space Coalition on this one, wasted spectrum is dead spectrum. Officially the public still owns the spectrum and I see no reason to deny the usage of unlicensed white space areas to new, or small wireless broadband companies trying to find a niche in an increasingly competitive and closed off market. Besides in urban areas these white spaces are very small and by themselves do not offer enough spectrum to viably compete with any company already established. While I do agree that channel interference would be a huge negative and should not be allowed to happen, this option needs to explored further before decided on. Especially if the coalition is already putting money up front to explore and build devices that can operate within the white spaces. This doesn't seem any different then a pirate radio station securing a small amount of bandwidth to broadcast from. If interference is the only issue, it seems the white spaces should be used.
In Other News:
Politics Meets Mobile Technology
This is just another step in on-going direction of peer-to-peer and digital technology interweaving itself in life. Democratic presidential hopefuls have begun using text messaging to garner support in areas where the candidates will be campaigning soon. This effort headed By John Edwards involves sending text messages to his campaign and receiving updates as well as phone calls from Edwards if the phone user texts back "call." Barrack Obama has started allowing supporters to text the numbers that spell out his last name and include in the text a question regarding just about anything. This idea seems revolutionary now but in the grand scheme of things was just the logical next step in the process. Text messaging can be used to a great degree when trying to gather people in one geographical location such as a city, or county and should just become another media tool in the arsenal of candidates.
Media critic Solomon pushes limits of fair-use in new documentary
Norman Solomon is about to release a documentary titled "War Made Easy." It documents presidential administrations going back 40 years and their use of the media to galvanize public opinion on war. On the surface it appears to be a scathing assessment of the current administrations usage of the media in the run-up to the Iraq war. But as the film moves through it uses tons of clips and footage from television news to show exactly how the media has been toyed with. The lining behind this is simple, in an age where some media companies are trying to increase control over their content this documentary tests the limits of fair use. Which is protected under copyright laws. Many media companies are actually allowing content to be used on sites such as Youtube, or even personal blogs, but many of these companies have limitations, or at the least guidelines on how such content can be used. Give Solomon credit for scoring a double hit with this documentary for democracy. In the realm of politics and in the realm of copyright.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
25% Newsroom Job Cut-SF Chronicle
Even local, progressive newspapers can't seem to keep their money grubbing owners happy enough with advertising revenue and subscribers to avoid having news rooms jobs cut. The SF Chronicle has decided to cut 25 percent of its staff members.
To give you an idea of how much news gathering ability that really is here.
"Eighty reporters, photographers, copy editors and others, as well as 20 employees in management positions are expected to be laid off by end of the summer. Chronicle Publisher Frank Vega said Friday that voluntary buyouts are likely to be offered."
Hearts News explanation bordered around the absurd. In order to adapt to a changing market place and of course to offset advertising loses as more and more people abandon what is known as traditional media for the glowing world of cyberspace.
Dan Gillmor has some great commentary on the sad situation at the SF Chronicle in his post SF Chronicle Whacks Jobs.
Then there’s this howler, albeit attributed to Rosenstiel:
(This is an excerpt from the SF Chronicle article)
He said the effect, even for people who don’t read the paper, “is that 25 percent of what goes on in the Bay Area won’t be covered. It will happen in the dark. … Our research shows that there is a lot of information that appears in a daily newspaper that doesn’t get covered by TV stations or citizen journalists or bloggers when a newspaper’s staff is cut.”
The premise here is that the Chronicle is actually reporting 100 percent of what goes on in the Bay Area now. I suspect Rosenstiel was either misquoted or was being ironic. He’s too smart and knowledgeable to believe this.
Dan Gillmor makes a good point here in his comment on the SF Chronicle assuming they are covering 100%. No way, as good as the Chronicle has become since Hearts purchased it, it still doesn't come close to diving deep enough into Mayor Gavin Newsom's affairs (and no not with women, his political ones), immigration, or low and behold itself. In fact, I'm almost surprised the SF Chronicle ran a story about cutting it's own employees.
I'm Still waiting for the Chronicle to write a story about the MediaNews -Hearts Corps distribution deal that was struck down in court...
I find it utterly impossible to say, think, or feel that the SF Chronicle is going to become better in any way shape or form because of this purely financial decision. I hope this isn't Hearts Corps reaction to having his purposed deal with MediaNews shut down, as a way of "showing" us who is boss.
I find it hard to believe the newspaper industry is in as bad of a financial crunch as it has been saying it is. Even if they are cutting news room jobs brings me back to an older idea; the real problem with the media industry is the people in charge think it can solely be run as a business with the bottom line deciding most, if not all things. If the media is not one thing, it is not a business.
In Other News:
YouTube Pioneers Challenge Pentagon
Recently the Pentagon has banned access to YouTube by soldiers serving in iraq and Afghanistan but also to all soldiers using computers on any Department of Defense property. This very conveniently coincided with the military releasing a proposal for YouTube to host a news "Boots On The Ground" series. Showing the iraq war thourh the eyes of soldiers on the ground.
"In a Pentagon news conference Thursday, Defense Information Systems Agency Vice Director Rear Adm. Elizabeth Hight said the decision was primarily driven by concerns about bandwidth, or the capacity of the Pentagon network to handle data-heavy material such as video.
Company officials said they were especially puzzled by the block because it came just days after the military launched its own channel on YouTube offering what it calls a "boots-on-the-ground" perspective of scenes of combat."
My guess is the military is smarter than running into a band width problem with it's troops relaying information. I don't think the military wants any of our troops to see what this "Boots On The Ground" is actually portraying. Simply put (which is really obvious) "Boots On The Ground" is going to be pure propaganda for our war machine and the military/pentagon/white house doesn't want to give our troops the ability to realize that everyone is caught in this lie, them and the people at home.
The South Carolina State will dis-continue home delivery and News stand sales in 18 counties
This cancellation, which is self inflicted will result in the loss of around 1,800 subscribers. I find this story interesting because The State is considered South Carolina's "paper of record" and is the largest one in the state. Similar to the result the SF Chronicle will have because of the staff cut The State's coverage of local news will decrease. Just another example of self-inflicted wounds to the newspaper industry. Maybe if one of these huge newspaper conglomerates should figure out how to incorporate the Internet with their print edition. That is where the true money making and content providing will come from.
To give you an idea of how much news gathering ability that really is here.
"Eighty reporters, photographers, copy editors and others, as well as 20 employees in management positions are expected to be laid off by end of the summer. Chronicle Publisher Frank Vega said Friday that voluntary buyouts are likely to be offered."
Hearts News explanation bordered around the absurd. In order to adapt to a changing market place and of course to offset advertising loses as more and more people abandon what is known as traditional media for the glowing world of cyberspace.
Dan Gillmor has some great commentary on the sad situation at the SF Chronicle in his post SF Chronicle Whacks Jobs.
Then there’s this howler, albeit attributed to Rosenstiel:
(This is an excerpt from the SF Chronicle article)
He said the effect, even for people who don’t read the paper, “is that 25 percent of what goes on in the Bay Area won’t be covered. It will happen in the dark. … Our research shows that there is a lot of information that appears in a daily newspaper that doesn’t get covered by TV stations or citizen journalists or bloggers when a newspaper’s staff is cut.”
The premise here is that the Chronicle is actually reporting 100 percent of what goes on in the Bay Area now. I suspect Rosenstiel was either misquoted or was being ironic. He’s too smart and knowledgeable to believe this.
Dan Gillmor makes a good point here in his comment on the SF Chronicle assuming they are covering 100%. No way, as good as the Chronicle has become since Hearts purchased it, it still doesn't come close to diving deep enough into Mayor Gavin Newsom's affairs (and no not with women, his political ones), immigration, or low and behold itself. In fact, I'm almost surprised the SF Chronicle ran a story about cutting it's own employees.
I'm Still waiting for the Chronicle to write a story about the MediaNews -Hearts Corps distribution deal that was struck down in court...
I find it utterly impossible to say, think, or feel that the SF Chronicle is going to become better in any way shape or form because of this purely financial decision. I hope this isn't Hearts Corps reaction to having his purposed deal with MediaNews shut down, as a way of "showing" us who is boss.
I find it hard to believe the newspaper industry is in as bad of a financial crunch as it has been saying it is. Even if they are cutting news room jobs brings me back to an older idea; the real problem with the media industry is the people in charge think it can solely be run as a business with the bottom line deciding most, if not all things. If the media is not one thing, it is not a business.
In Other News:
YouTube Pioneers Challenge Pentagon
Recently the Pentagon has banned access to YouTube by soldiers serving in iraq and Afghanistan but also to all soldiers using computers on any Department of Defense property. This very conveniently coincided with the military releasing a proposal for YouTube to host a news "Boots On The Ground" series. Showing the iraq war thourh the eyes of soldiers on the ground.
"In a Pentagon news conference Thursday, Defense Information Systems Agency Vice Director Rear Adm. Elizabeth Hight said the decision was primarily driven by concerns about bandwidth, or the capacity of the Pentagon network to handle data-heavy material such as video.
Company officials said they were especially puzzled by the block because it came just days after the military launched its own channel on YouTube offering what it calls a "boots-on-the-ground" perspective of scenes of combat."
My guess is the military is smarter than running into a band width problem with it's troops relaying information. I don't think the military wants any of our troops to see what this "Boots On The Ground" is actually portraying. Simply put (which is really obvious) "Boots On The Ground" is going to be pure propaganda for our war machine and the military/pentagon/white house doesn't want to give our troops the ability to realize that everyone is caught in this lie, them and the people at home.
The South Carolina State will dis-continue home delivery and News stand sales in 18 counties
This cancellation, which is self inflicted will result in the loss of around 1,800 subscribers. I find this story interesting because The State is considered South Carolina's "paper of record" and is the largest one in the state. Similar to the result the SF Chronicle will have because of the staff cut The State's coverage of local news will decrease. Just another example of self-inflicted wounds to the newspaper industry. Maybe if one of these huge newspaper conglomerates should figure out how to incorporate the Internet with their print edition. That is where the true money making and content providing will come from.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Consumer Doesn't Need More Media Convergence
Usually I have to hand it to what Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks says. I often cite him on this blog and all of them have been agreeable. But His post titled Newspapers, TV, and the Net - It's Convergence Time, written on May 2oth on his Blog, titled Blog Maverick.
I'll just tell you what he said that I fine difficult to swallow.
"Why isn't a CBS News merging their news department with a NY Times and rebranding itself as the 6pm NY Times News? Or with Time Magazine News? Or NBC News and???"
This sounds dangerously close to an advocation for increased corporate convergence not only simply media convergence. Is the CBS NY Times News really necessary? The NY Times has never dipped into T.V and did not build their reputation on T.V.
He later goes on to say
"But what is happening is that everyone is cutting back individual news operations rather than partnering to ramp up. Consumers don't need more brands, they need more in-depth reporting of more stories."
I agree with him when he says consumers don't need more brands, we don't. Its also apparent that news organizations are cutting back international and local news departments.
But partnering to ramp up means partnering up what advertising and distributing departments. In earlier posts I talked about the Media News-SF Chronicle deal, titled A Win For Clint Reilly.
The court ruled that any form of convergence in these departments eliminated competition and was therefore not allowed. I'm confused about what type of convergence Cuban is advocating. This idea sounds dangerous and I don't think should even be contemplated without much further discussion. It has already been proven that increased media convergence leads to loss of jobs, and lower quality news reporting, not better quality. By examples that are already in place More "brands" lead to better, more in-depth reporting, not the other way around.
In Other News:
Microsoft Makes Biggest Buy Yet
Microsoft will buy aQuantive for US$6 billion ($8.2 billion, paying an 85 per cent premium to snap up one of the last large independent companies in a consolidating web advertising market.
Interesting Microsoft acquires more advertising companies. And so be it another one bites the dust as mentioned in the quote. This was Microsoft's largest purchase in it's history and sends a signals to Google, and Yahoo that, at least for now it isn't planning on going away. This purchase of course followed Google purchase of DoubleClick.
Notes On Being a Better Citizen Journalist
This is a guide with some helpful but useful tips about how to build your citizen journalism site. How to create a personal experience with your audience and links to other similar sites. It is a quick read with a lot of helpful information that people who are interested in citizen journalism should read.
I'll just tell you what he said that I fine difficult to swallow.
"Why isn't a CBS News merging their news department with a NY Times and rebranding itself as the 6pm NY Times News? Or with Time Magazine News? Or NBC News and???"
This sounds dangerously close to an advocation for increased corporate convergence not only simply media convergence. Is the CBS NY Times News really necessary? The NY Times has never dipped into T.V and did not build their reputation on T.V.
He later goes on to say
"But what is happening is that everyone is cutting back individual news operations rather than partnering to ramp up. Consumers don't need more brands, they need more in-depth reporting of more stories."
I agree with him when he says consumers don't need more brands, we don't. Its also apparent that news organizations are cutting back international and local news departments.
But partnering to ramp up means partnering up what advertising and distributing departments. In earlier posts I talked about the Media News-SF Chronicle deal, titled A Win For Clint Reilly.
The court ruled that any form of convergence in these departments eliminated competition and was therefore not allowed. I'm confused about what type of convergence Cuban is advocating. This idea sounds dangerous and I don't think should even be contemplated without much further discussion. It has already been proven that increased media convergence leads to loss of jobs, and lower quality news reporting, not better quality. By examples that are already in place More "brands" lead to better, more in-depth reporting, not the other way around.
In Other News:
Microsoft Makes Biggest Buy Yet
Microsoft will buy aQuantive for US$6 billion ($8.2 billion, paying an 85 per cent premium to snap up one of the last large independent companies in a consolidating web advertising market.
Interesting Microsoft acquires more advertising companies. And so be it another one bites the dust as mentioned in the quote. This was Microsoft's largest purchase in it's history and sends a signals to Google, and Yahoo that, at least for now it isn't planning on going away. This purchase of course followed Google purchase of DoubleClick.
Notes On Being a Better Citizen Journalist
This is a guide with some helpful but useful tips about how to build your citizen journalism site. How to create a personal experience with your audience and links to other similar sites. It is a quick read with a lot of helpful information that people who are interested in citizen journalism should read.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Progress For New Assignment
I would like to congratulate NewAssignment.Net and founder Jay Rosen, also the author of PressThink, I would also like to congratulate Wired. Together these two combined resources and capital to create Assignment Zero, a collaborative effort between citizen journalists and traditional industry editors, think pro-am.
Recently Assignment Zero launched some preview drafts of the first project it took on. The issue they chose was Crowdsourcing.
If your not familiar with the term click the link above. It will take you to the Wikipedia definition, which I must admit need work. Here is another link to Rosen's own take on the first publication of all their combined efforts. he gives an awesome quote as to why they chose crowdsourcing and some insight into where it can go. Besides, Wikipedia itself started, or at least put the idea of crowdsourcing on the map. Check the Rosen article for tons of information on the main contributors of this project, future projects, and the main"idea" of where the crowdsourcing project is going to aimed. Also, he very candidly writes about adjustments that needed top be made and is open to the possibility of failure.
When Assignment Zero launched I wrote: “We’re going to report on the spread of what’s called crowdsourcing and the larger practice it’s part of: peer production on the new information commons, in all of its forms. Collaboration online — and why it works when it does — is an expansive and nuanced story with lots of locations.”
And why not? It is truly a great idea. Taking a job normally preformed by a professional and almost out sourcing it to citizens.
Check this wired magazine article written about it. In my opinion Rosen's quote says it all...
"This is an attempt to bring journalists together with people in the public who can help cover a story," says project founder Jay Rosen.
As a a bit of s side note on crowdsourcing and wikipedia. There is a documentary being filmed titled Truth In Numbers. The camera crew is traveling all around the world documenting international wiki events and how different societies use wikipedia.
Here's the problem, they need money. Check the website out and watch some of the trailers that document production as they travel.
In Other News:
military taps YouTube to promote its view of Iraq
This is bad news, it does contain a hint of good news but I'll get to that in the end. For all the rave YouTube has created and will continue to create in the coming years, and/or even generations the decision of our military to tap into as a source of practically free advertising to enlist is a bad idea. Many college campus's have already banned military recruiters and this is a avenue ripe with young eyeballs and impressionable minds. This is what the military is offering to produce as content.
"Moving into a realm long dominated by Islamic militants, the military has launched a YouTube channel offering what it calls a boots-on-the-ground perspective. The move recognizes that the Internet is becoming a key battleground for public opinion at a time when domestic support for the war is dwindling."
Oh the only hint of good is that if the military is embracing YouTube as a viable way to get their message out than have no fear for YouTube will never go anywhere. The only place it could go would be corporate.
Obama Takes Control of Myspace Page
I think the most interesting part of this story isn't that in the wake of declaring his candidacy for the presidency he decided to wrestle control of a Myspace page created by a supporter. This makes sense, politicians and Obama in general seem open to new media ideas but not so far as to allow someone totally unrelated to their campaign to manage something as visible as a Myspace page. What is interesting to me is that he (and his campaign minions) ever allowed somebody else to create and run a Myspace page for Obama. Although his campaign kept an eye on the page for content and obviously to be de facto editing crew. The one thing that doesn't sit so well is that Obama completely outed the man who created and up kept the Myspace. This guy was obviously a big supporter of your campaign and cause and you have now shunned him. A smarter decision would have been to hire him.
Recently Assignment Zero launched some preview drafts of the first project it took on. The issue they chose was Crowdsourcing.
If your not familiar with the term click the link above. It will take you to the Wikipedia definition, which I must admit need work. Here is another link to Rosen's own take on the first publication of all their combined efforts. he gives an awesome quote as to why they chose crowdsourcing and some insight into where it can go. Besides, Wikipedia itself started, or at least put the idea of crowdsourcing on the map. Check the Rosen article for tons of information on the main contributors of this project, future projects, and the main"idea" of where the crowdsourcing project is going to aimed. Also, he very candidly writes about adjustments that needed top be made and is open to the possibility of failure.
When Assignment Zero launched I wrote: “We’re going to report on the spread of what’s called crowdsourcing and the larger practice it’s part of: peer production on the new information commons, in all of its forms. Collaboration online — and why it works when it does — is an expansive and nuanced story with lots of locations.”
And why not? It is truly a great idea. Taking a job normally preformed by a professional and almost out sourcing it to citizens.
Check this wired magazine article written about it. In my opinion Rosen's quote says it all...
"This is an attempt to bring journalists together with people in the public who can help cover a story," says project founder Jay Rosen.
As a a bit of s side note on crowdsourcing and wikipedia. There is a documentary being filmed titled Truth In Numbers. The camera crew is traveling all around the world documenting international wiki events and how different societies use wikipedia.
Here's the problem, they need money. Check the website out and watch some of the trailers that document production as they travel.
In Other News:
military taps YouTube to promote its view of Iraq
This is bad news, it does contain a hint of good news but I'll get to that in the end. For all the rave YouTube has created and will continue to create in the coming years, and/or even generations the decision of our military to tap into as a source of practically free advertising to enlist is a bad idea. Many college campus's have already banned military recruiters and this is a avenue ripe with young eyeballs and impressionable minds. This is what the military is offering to produce as content.
"Moving into a realm long dominated by Islamic militants, the military has launched a YouTube channel offering what it calls a boots-on-the-ground perspective. The move recognizes that the Internet is becoming a key battleground for public opinion at a time when domestic support for the war is dwindling."
Oh the only hint of good is that if the military is embracing YouTube as a viable way to get their message out than have no fear for YouTube will never go anywhere. The only place it could go would be corporate.
Obama Takes Control of Myspace Page
I think the most interesting part of this story isn't that in the wake of declaring his candidacy for the presidency he decided to wrestle control of a Myspace page created by a supporter. This makes sense, politicians and Obama in general seem open to new media ideas but not so far as to allow someone totally unrelated to their campaign to manage something as visible as a Myspace page. What is interesting to me is that he (and his campaign minions) ever allowed somebody else to create and run a Myspace page for Obama. Although his campaign kept an eye on the page for content and obviously to be de facto editing crew. The one thing that doesn't sit so well is that Obama completely outed the man who created and up kept the Myspace. This guy was obviously a big supporter of your campaign and cause and you have now shunned him. A smarter decision would have been to hire him.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
A Win For Clint Reilly
I'm going to re-hash a little over the MediaNews-SF Chronicle merger deal that was recently banned from taking place by a federal judge. From the SF Bay Guardian here is a complete collection of the legal memos submitted so far by both parties involved in the case. The Run Down
It seems our independent friend Clint Reilly managed to bring down the huge merger scheduled betwen these two giants media conglomerates. Acting on his own notion of media eithics and American law Reilly decided to sue the conglomerates. This is from an April 18th 2007 Bay Guardian story titled Media Trial To Proceed - In Public".
"After Federal Judge Susan Illston ruled that Reilly's case against local newspaper juggernaut MediaNews Group can proceed to trial April 30, and she has strongly indicated that all key evidence will be public."
The settlement that was reached just a few weeks before the trial was set to begin according to Beyond the Reilly Settlement. The agreement is full of legal details about what MediaNews can and cannot do as far as negotiating with the Chronicle. Some of the details were not disclosed. Overall the major concessions of the agreement were
"The settlement involved a lot of peripheral terms, but the essence was this: the Hearst Corp., which owns the San Francisco Chronicle, can no longer consider combining printing, distribution, and ad sales with MediaNews Group, which owns almost every other major local daily in the Bay Area.
Reilly announced that the deal prevents the supposed competitors from unfairly or illegally negotiating any major joint operating arrangement in the near future. The trial was scheduled to begin just days after the agreement was reached"
A key detail reached in the agreement is the ability of Reilly to appoint private citizens to the editorial boards of all major Northern California newspapers.
"According to the terms, Reilly will recommend private citizens for appointment to the editorial boards of every California Newspapers Partnership publication in the region, including the San Jose Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times, and the Oakland Tribune.
He will also get access to advertising space in the pages of the papers for a regular column."
These are all major concessions won by Reilly from two major newspaper conglomerates that wield a lot of combined media power. I commend the Bay Guardian and Media Alliance for being one of the only voices sounding the opposition bell and for going to court to legally un-seal documents that otherwise would have gone forever unknown to the public as the sole remaining (somewhat) competitive newspaper is sucked up by the machine.
This is all great news for bay area media content and viewers/listeners. But there are som troublesome aspects involved as well. Where was our Governor? Where was the state Attorney General Jerry Brown? How come the Bay Guardian was one of (if not the only) newspaper reporting on this supposed merger? I subscribe to the Chronicle, but I read the Guardian every Thursday at work. I consistently have been reading about every update in the Reilly case since the begining and yet the Chronicle has not published one word about the case. This makes some sense since they would be reporting negatively on themselves, but is isn't that the point? What would happen if the deal went through then even more news papers would not be willing to report on themselves or others. That is why this case is such a big deal. To the bay area and the media nation as a whole.
The absolute most troublesome aspect of this case is what is printed in the very first paragraph of the Guardian story titled Beyond the Reilly Settlement
Shortly before Clint Reilly began a press conference April 25 announcing that he'd settled his federal antitrust suit against the Bay Area's two largest newspaper companies, Cheryl Hurd of NBC affiliate. KNTV, channel 11, loudly complained to the pack of reporters that she just didn't quite get the story.
"Why does anybody care about this?" she asked, sounding annoyed as she waved the press release listing the terms of the settlement in the air. "I don't even understand any of this. What's this mean?"
This is ridiculous! What do you mean a reporter doesn't get this story. This story has so much to do with our nation it isn't funny that people are not taking it that seriously. An independent reality investor sued two giant media companies for not playing fair and won in court publicly.
Reilly blocked a corporate merger and during the course exposed documents stating that two "competitive" newspapers were going to combine advertsing and distribution centers. This announcement after Hearst of the Chronicle invested $300 million in MediaNews, which allowed the company to then buy up numerous dailies around the Bay Area. Of course ot avoid anti-trust scrutiny the value of the $300 million investment depended on all non-bay area assets, but later memos revealed Hearts planned on shuffling the investment to include Bay Area dailies.
If you include Reilly's first lawsuit against MediaNews, which involved the purchase of the SF Examiner in order to ensure the SF Chronicle becoming number one. Do not forget either that this deal also exposed Hearst and the Chronicle of offering then Mayor Willie Brown favorable news coverage if he signed off on the deal.
For any reporter to "not get" this story is obscene and that reporter should be handed their head. As for Mr. Reilly, if all of us citizens had half as much civic duty in our blodd as he does this place would be far different; and I'd be willing to make an arguement that it would be better.
In Other News:
Indonesia gains first full time Blogger
In a country that resides so far above the digital divide line a development abroad like this one may not seem very important. Hopefully into the future this doesn't hninder our further development and expansion of our media capabilities. But for developments around the world it is a sign that bloggers/blogs and the entire idea of de-centralized, citizen contributed media sites is spreading.
"I resigned from my job from March 1, to become a full-time blogger. I will be dedicating my time to developing an Indonesian blogosphere...," said Budi Putra, in a phone interview last weekend. Purta quit his job working for Tempo Group, a large media corporation in Indonesia.
Google Should Buy Starbucks
This is an interesting thought. Starbucks has an image they are trying to fit as the third place people want to spend time. The other two being home and office. Google fits into this mold fairly well as being the third place people want to spend their time as well. One is physical space the other is loacted in cyber space. Quite a concept. The interesting things are that Starbucks already has a record label of it's own and granted the limited ability to download and have songs burned onto a CD for you while you wait for your mocha. This attempt at music distribution is a big step for a company based around coffee and atmosphere but for a company like Google it seems like a great purchase. Just think, as YouTube grows with Google and their other partners Starbucks has the potential to be the outlet for products that originate on sites such as YouTube, E-bay, or any other media content site. The cross advertsing for Starbucks seem well worth the purchase as well. The potential appears to be through the roof and Google's legal troubles make hinde any real consideration, but it is a very interesting idea.
It seems our independent friend Clint Reilly managed to bring down the huge merger scheduled betwen these two giants media conglomerates. Acting on his own notion of media eithics and American law Reilly decided to sue the conglomerates. This is from an April 18th 2007 Bay Guardian story titled Media Trial To Proceed - In Public".
"After Federal Judge Susan Illston ruled that Reilly's case against local newspaper juggernaut MediaNews Group can proceed to trial April 30, and she has strongly indicated that all key evidence will be public."
The settlement that was reached just a few weeks before the trial was set to begin according to Beyond the Reilly Settlement. The agreement is full of legal details about what MediaNews can and cannot do as far as negotiating with the Chronicle. Some of the details were not disclosed. Overall the major concessions of the agreement were
"The settlement involved a lot of peripheral terms, but the essence was this: the Hearst Corp., which owns the San Francisco Chronicle, can no longer consider combining printing, distribution, and ad sales with MediaNews Group, which owns almost every other major local daily in the Bay Area.
Reilly announced that the deal prevents the supposed competitors from unfairly or illegally negotiating any major joint operating arrangement in the near future. The trial was scheduled to begin just days after the agreement was reached"
A key detail reached in the agreement is the ability of Reilly to appoint private citizens to the editorial boards of all major Northern California newspapers.
"According to the terms, Reilly will recommend private citizens for appointment to the editorial boards of every California Newspapers Partnership publication in the region, including the San Jose Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times, and the Oakland Tribune.
He will also get access to advertising space in the pages of the papers for a regular column."
These are all major concessions won by Reilly from two major newspaper conglomerates that wield a lot of combined media power. I commend the Bay Guardian and Media Alliance for being one of the only voices sounding the opposition bell and for going to court to legally un-seal documents that otherwise would have gone forever unknown to the public as the sole remaining (somewhat) competitive newspaper is sucked up by the machine.
This is all great news for bay area media content and viewers/listeners. But there are som troublesome aspects involved as well. Where was our Governor? Where was the state Attorney General Jerry Brown? How come the Bay Guardian was one of (if not the only) newspaper reporting on this supposed merger? I subscribe to the Chronicle, but I read the Guardian every Thursday at work. I consistently have been reading about every update in the Reilly case since the begining and yet the Chronicle has not published one word about the case. This makes some sense since they would be reporting negatively on themselves, but is isn't that the point? What would happen if the deal went through then even more news papers would not be willing to report on themselves or others. That is why this case is such a big deal. To the bay area and the media nation as a whole.
The absolute most troublesome aspect of this case is what is printed in the very first paragraph of the Guardian story titled Beyond the Reilly Settlement
Shortly before Clint Reilly began a press conference April 25 announcing that he'd settled his federal antitrust suit against the Bay Area's two largest newspaper companies, Cheryl Hurd of NBC affiliate. KNTV, channel 11, loudly complained to the pack of reporters that she just didn't quite get the story.
"Why does anybody care about this?" she asked, sounding annoyed as she waved the press release listing the terms of the settlement in the air. "I don't even understand any of this. What's this mean?"
This is ridiculous! What do you mean a reporter doesn't get this story. This story has so much to do with our nation it isn't funny that people are not taking it that seriously. An independent reality investor sued two giant media companies for not playing fair and won in court publicly.
Reilly blocked a corporate merger and during the course exposed documents stating that two "competitive" newspapers were going to combine advertsing and distribution centers. This announcement after Hearst of the Chronicle invested $300 million in MediaNews, which allowed the company to then buy up numerous dailies around the Bay Area. Of course ot avoid anti-trust scrutiny the value of the $300 million investment depended on all non-bay area assets, but later memos revealed Hearts planned on shuffling the investment to include Bay Area dailies.
If you include Reilly's first lawsuit against MediaNews, which involved the purchase of the SF Examiner in order to ensure the SF Chronicle becoming number one. Do not forget either that this deal also exposed Hearst and the Chronicle of offering then Mayor Willie Brown favorable news coverage if he signed off on the deal.
For any reporter to "not get" this story is obscene and that reporter should be handed their head. As for Mr. Reilly, if all of us citizens had half as much civic duty in our blodd as he does this place would be far different; and I'd be willing to make an arguement that it would be better.
In Other News:
Indonesia gains first full time Blogger
In a country that resides so far above the digital divide line a development abroad like this one may not seem very important. Hopefully into the future this doesn't hninder our further development and expansion of our media capabilities. But for developments around the world it is a sign that bloggers/blogs and the entire idea of de-centralized, citizen contributed media sites is spreading.
"I resigned from my job from March 1, to become a full-time blogger. I will be dedicating my time to developing an Indonesian blogosphere...," said Budi Putra, in a phone interview last weekend. Purta quit his job working for Tempo Group, a large media corporation in Indonesia.
Google Should Buy Starbucks
This is an interesting thought. Starbucks has an image they are trying to fit as the third place people want to spend time. The other two being home and office. Google fits into this mold fairly well as being the third place people want to spend their time as well. One is physical space the other is loacted in cyber space. Quite a concept. The interesting things are that Starbucks already has a record label of it's own and granted the limited ability to download and have songs burned onto a CD for you while you wait for your mocha. This attempt at music distribution is a big step for a company based around coffee and atmosphere but for a company like Google it seems like a great purchase. Just think, as YouTube grows with Google and their other partners Starbucks has the potential to be the outlet for products that originate on sites such as YouTube, E-bay, or any other media content site. The cross advertsing for Starbucks seem well worth the purchase as well. The potential appears to be through the roof and Google's legal troubles make hinde any real consideration, but it is a very interesting idea.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
American Towns
Today in this post I am going to highlight one specific citizen media site local to San Francisco. The site is titled American Towns.
American Towns highlights specific geographical locations for each city all linked together under the title of the city you are looking into.
Here is the link to my city, San Francisco. American Towns is a comprehensive citizen media site where locals and/or visiters can go and check out local events and times.
The users have the option to upload their own events to the Events Page where everyone can see them. Each event has the time, location and a link to the
website of the location of the event.
American Towns-San Francisco links to news in SF, events, business events and news. As well as religion, school and community. The site comes with links to photos, videos and more that users can upload to the site to compliment a story they submitted or just upload pictures.
I like this website because it functions as a news portal for locals who are sick of reading "mainstream" media outlets. What this site has over competitors who aren't citizen media sites is a specific focus on San Francisco. Even the SF Chronicle doesn't focus entirely on the SF area.
American Towns could be the future. I'm sure the site is not perfect because there is no such thing as a perfect citizen media site, but the possibility of the future is near. Think of a main site that has each state listed with a link to that state's homepage of available sites that focus on specific cities within each state.
Depending on the structure desired after each site is broken down by state they then could be broken down by county and then city/town. The site could be made so accessible that people all over could check the site for upcoming news and events in their own city as well as cities they are planning on visiting in the near future.
Take time to check out American Towns and look up some of the other cities available around the country. Citizen media sites like this I hope will and I know they can be the future.
In Other News:
Deal Of The Year
Most people are aware that Viacom is sueing Google over copyright infringement issues. But what flew completely under the radar is a deal that Yahoo and Comcast have struck. Yahoo will now have the pleasure of selling advertisement on all Comcast.net videos. The potential here is big. Yahoo does not have a network of their own but Comcast does. Yahoo now has access to Comcasts entire network and anything an already private Comcast subscriber watches Yahoo has exclusive advertising rights. It seems Google has some competition at least making a run to appear in the rear-view mirror.
You Tube Under Attack
"The TV, movie and record giant NBC Universal teamed up with the TV and news behemoth News Corp to come up with a YouTube-like Web site that would be business friendly and not involve so many copyright violations." This is also big technology news and bad news for Google and You Tube. Between this business deal and the one between Yahoo and Comcast mentioned above Google is in a for a legal fight with Viacom and a content fight with it's top competitor Yahoo and another emerging competitor in News Corp & NBC. Plus the News Corp/NBC deal won't have copyright infringement which may very well draw a different type of advertiser as well as consumer. Look for changes in access and content of free, uploaded sites such as You Tube.
American Towns highlights specific geographical locations for each city all linked together under the title of the city you are looking into.
Here is the link to my city, San Francisco. American Towns is a comprehensive citizen media site where locals and/or visiters can go and check out local events and times.
The users have the option to upload their own events to the Events Page where everyone can see them. Each event has the time, location and a link to the
website of the location of the event.
American Towns-San Francisco links to news in SF, events, business events and news. As well as religion, school and community. The site comes with links to photos, videos and more that users can upload to the site to compliment a story they submitted or just upload pictures.
I like this website because it functions as a news portal for locals who are sick of reading "mainstream" media outlets. What this site has over competitors who aren't citizen media sites is a specific focus on San Francisco. Even the SF Chronicle doesn't focus entirely on the SF area.
American Towns could be the future. I'm sure the site is not perfect because there is no such thing as a perfect citizen media site, but the possibility of the future is near. Think of a main site that has each state listed with a link to that state's homepage of available sites that focus on specific cities within each state.
Depending on the structure desired after each site is broken down by state they then could be broken down by county and then city/town. The site could be made so accessible that people all over could check the site for upcoming news and events in their own city as well as cities they are planning on visiting in the near future.
Take time to check out American Towns and look up some of the other cities available around the country. Citizen media sites like this I hope will and I know they can be the future.
In Other News:
Deal Of The Year
Most people are aware that Viacom is sueing Google over copyright infringement issues. But what flew completely under the radar is a deal that Yahoo and Comcast have struck. Yahoo will now have the pleasure of selling advertisement on all Comcast.net videos. The potential here is big. Yahoo does not have a network of their own but Comcast does. Yahoo now has access to Comcasts entire network and anything an already private Comcast subscriber watches Yahoo has exclusive advertising rights. It seems Google has some competition at least making a run to appear in the rear-view mirror.
You Tube Under Attack
"The TV, movie and record giant NBC Universal teamed up with the TV and news behemoth News Corp to come up with a YouTube-like Web site that would be business friendly and not involve so many copyright violations." This is also big technology news and bad news for Google and You Tube. Between this business deal and the one between Yahoo and Comcast mentioned above Google is in a for a legal fight with Viacom and a content fight with it's top competitor Yahoo and another emerging competitor in News Corp & NBC. Plus the News Corp/NBC deal won't have copyright infringement which may very well draw a different type of advertiser as well as consumer. Look for changes in access and content of free, uploaded sites such as You Tube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
