As you know, I straddle both worlds - new media and old -(or "dirty media" as ZeFrank calls it he he). Implicit - never openly said - in a lot of the discussion, is that the problem with tradional TV, is the number of people invloved in SOME traditional TV production. Dedication to craft and expertise brought to bear by, devoted, hard working professionals is somehow equated to waste. So it's easy to look at all the gear and staff and say "see! look at all of this bloat. We can do this with a mini-dv and a laptop." Well, not true in my estimation. One person with one camera simply can not accomplish what a crew with 20 years of experience can.
In fact - me with my camera on my shoulder doing interviews and gathering facts by myself-holding a RE-50 in my other hand (which i've done in my capacity with NBC News) - I can't accompish what a team of production people can.
A lot of the posts point out how much gear and staff it takes to do what I do in my day job. Jeff Jarvis actually asked in a different post: "Do they really need all that to shoot three minutes of obvious primetime drama? Of course, they don’t."
That simply isn't a quantifiable statement. It's like those true/false test questions. Always be wary of the absolutes. Is social media better because it generally requires less infrastructure? Of course not! (but watch, look for more infrastructure in new media as more people get involved and look to stand out) New media shines becuase I or you or anyone else can ask questions, comment and get people like Jarvis to respond directly to us. We actually have a stake in what's going on. And THAT is immesureably freakin' awesome!
The failure of traditional TV lies in its inability connect with people on a deeply personal, transactional level. That does not mean that what traditional TV does is without merit. It is simply different animal. Frankly, there is room for some production value, in some internet TV offerings, even if it means a little editing. But to suggest that might be impolitic, especially from an old-media dinosaur ;-)
Having said all of that, folks like you, Jarvis, Congdon, Baron et al, always inspire me to think about what media is and should be. Good on ya!
I just think we should always leave room for a lot of different ideas.
All Comments
As you know, I straddle both worlds - new media and old -(or "dirty media" as ZeFrank calls it he he). Implicit - never openly said - in a lot of the discussion, is that the problem with tradional TV, is the number of people invloved in SOME traditional TV production. Dedication to craft and expertise brought to bear by, devoted, hard working professionals is somehow equated to waste. So it's easy to look at all the gear and staff and say "see! look at all of this bloat. We can do this with a mini-dv and a laptop." Well, not true in my estimation. One person with one camera simply can not accomplish what a crew with 20 years of experience can.
In fact - me with my camera on my shoulder doing interviews and gathering facts by myself-holding a RE-50 in my other hand (which i've done in my capacity with NBC News) - I can't accompish what a team of production people can.
A lot of the posts point out how much gear and staff it takes to do what I do in my day job. Jeff Jarvis actually asked in a different post: "Do they really need all that to shoot three minutes of obvious primetime drama? Of course, they don’t."
That simply isn't a quantifiable statement. It's like those true/false test questions. Always be wary of the absolutes. Is social media better because it generally requires less infrastructure? Of course not! (but watch, look for more infrastructure in new media as more people get involved and look to stand out) New media shines becuase I or you or anyone else can ask questions, comment and get people like Jarvis to respond directly to us. We actually have a stake in what's going on. And THAT is immesureably freakin' awesome!
The failure of traditional TV lies in its inability connect with people on a deeply personal, transactional level. That does not mean that what traditional TV does is without merit. It is simply different animal. Frankly, there is room for some production value, in some internet TV offerings, even if it means a little editing.
But to suggest that might be impolitic, especially from an old-media dinosaur ;-)
Having said all of that, folks like you, Jarvis, Congdon, Baron et al, always inspire me to think about what media is and should be. Good on ya!
I just think we should always leave room for a lot of different ideas.
Jim