Appear on Newsnight, or not
A few weeks back we launched Oh My Newsnight, an invitation to make a short film for the programme to run early next year. Of course we're not alone in asking viewers to provide User Generated Content - these days everybody .
At least, lots of programmes, but I'm not so sure lots of users are.
We asked you to send us a film of around two minutes duration on any subject of your choice. And yes, we've had a few offerings so far, but very much of the YouTube "me and my cat" variety.
What's surprising is that while many viewers are prepared to sit down and create lengthy and thoughtful blogs about what we're doing on Newsnight - or what we should be doing - which will be read by about 50,000 hardened blog watchers, almost noone seems to want to commit those thoughts to video, with a potential audience of a million viewers.
So, this is last orders ladies and gentlemen. If you want to get your message across there is a short time left to get cracking with camera, webcam or mobile phone. If your message is you'd rather leave it to us, that's also fine.
Or maybe your view coincides with that of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart in of CNN's efforts in the field of User Generated Content.
Comments
I suspect the problem is partly anonymity. It is a completely different game to writing a blog post under the name of "Mr Scrubbles" or whatever, to actually being exposed for yourself on television where judgements are more easily made. (I would also kindly suggest that the typical viewer of Newsnight isn't the kind of viewer who would be willing to be on the television for the sake of being on television, like Big Brother viewers or whoever.)
The other problem with someone sending in a video is that you have to have a well-formed idea and opinion crafted out even before you start. Blog posts are mostly responsive - a reply to the original post or a reply to other posters. It is rare when bloggers start babbling off their own boot without a 'trigger' message. Maybe you would have had a bigger response had you defined a topic beforehand, and maybe had a correspondant speaking (perhaps controversially) to which viewers could respond.
Why don't you just show 'Loose Change 2nd edition'
I must say that I read your views about bloggers attitudes and their lack of will to appear on video. I was not even aware of the idea of asking people to contribute with 2 minute long recordings. I must also say that perhaps the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself should provide the means for people to voice their views on television.
Peter
If you have two minutes to spare on an edition perhaps you could invite a couple of members of the London Assembly on to the show?
I don't think I've ever seen Newsnight feature a London AM or explain what the Assembly does and if you've ever looked back at the last six years of 'home rule' for London I must have missed that edition.
Whilst I accept Newsnight is a national programme the issue of citywide government is something which applies to all areas of the UK.
If nothing else it'd make a change from the Blair/Brown soap opera.
Another plug for vikingar? Why don't you send a camera team to his place and get this charade over and done with? You know you want to.
Carlos (above) said "the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself should provide the means for people to voice their views on television"
Precisely. I can't remember a time when public opinion and elite opinion were so out of step in Britain. Perhaps Peter thinks this is some kind of freakish accident instead of the predictable result of the institutional setup in Britain.
Personally I think user generated content belongs on the web and the content of the Newsnight programme itself should be left in the hands of the Newsnight team.
Although I think this idea of access is great, I think the fact that you are asking for rights to broadcast material while exempting yourself from making any payment is morally dubious.
Would love to appear on the programme. BUT I live in South Korea, so bit difficult.....
I suspect it's more to do with the age and socio demographic of Newsnight's typical viewers. User Generated Content is primarily being led by the 16 - 24 age group. This age group tends not to be wealthy and is also one of the least telly friendly segments - particularly for high level current affairs programmes.
Let alone being shy, how many Newsnight viewers would a) have a cine-camera that can record movie, b) know how to digitalise it on to their computer c) know how to then edit it and d) know how to upload it too! I know that I don't - and I am in my late thirties. My parents certainly wouldn't be able to either. But we are happy to contribute via post backs etc.
I think the video option is a nice idea and really hope it works, but it may be a bit ahead of its time.
And please, if it does take off, keep it mainly sensible and serious -unlike that ashes nonsense on last night's show!
I think the problem is the short notice. Even assuming that people own a suitable camera (I don't, but have access to one), it's quite an investment in time.
You're certainly aware of how much time is spent on the footage you use for Newsnight, and you've got professionals doing it. I can't spare that sort of time at the drop of a hat, even though I might have some brilliant ideas. Let it run for a while. I'm sure you'll get some quality submissions eventually.
Although I think this idea of access is great, I think the fact that you are asking for rights to broadcast material while exempting yourself from making any payment is morally dubious.
Writing one's views allows one to concentrate on other things. I have my TV on next to my PC. I can stop typing if something on the telly catches my eye. Or I can get make snacks/ hot drinks/do phone calls. Having made a few minutes'of video in the past, I found the house was quickly reduced to a shambles which I had to clear up afterwards. Just to get a couple of mins. took ages and there was no hope of doing anything else at the same time. I think I'll leave filming to you,the professional programme maker who benefits from ´óÏó´«Ã½ licence money. Watching home videos is not appealing, and I am surprised a programme like yours even considers it. We shall all be watching the team's holiday snaps soon.
Getting away from the subject of home videos, I endorse Martin Hoscik's post about the GLA. There are other UK city Mayors/greater authorities which could be spotlighted in turn, as well as London's GLA. It is disgraceful how London's Council Tax levy is wasted for this extra bureaucratic tier - that is aside from the absurd cost to Londoners for the Olympics.
I recently stole in to see the view from the empty lunch room at The Tower Thistle Hotel. It had been vacated by a TfL lunch do. The rubbish bin was overflowing with thick brochures, surplus to the beano. Their printed logo "Working for London" leered up at me. Across the Thames there is the GLA empire, City Hall itself containing a marvellous amphi-theatre, with refreshments available to order. That's just one small thing I found out about.
Ken has surrounded himself with highly paid unelected "advisers", mostly political cronies. I read that other City Mayors do this. I read that Ken's PR office cost is more than that of the PM. I expect such waste is repeated in all UK major cities.
Please let us have a video you make about these expensive talking shops up and down the land. We want to know salaries, expenses, who's who, what they are supposed to do - everything you can show, please. It is long overdue that these lavishly funded (by us) undisturbed empires were shown.
I was enthusiastic to make something, but after watching Jeremy Paxman's video, I thought much better of it. I do not find his patronising tone endearing!
´óÏó´«Ã½, you are the news organization, we are the audience. Don't expect us to do your job for you. Few of us have the time or skill to submit professional results. That's why YouTube exists, for people to display their enormous collection of amateur junk to a disinterested world. You (usually rightly) criticize what little you get and you won't pay for it no matter how good it is anyway. So you keep cooking it up and dishing it out and we'll tell you how good or bad we think it tastes and smells. It's either that or make the site a one way street again.
I watch your ´óÏó´«Ã½ Newsnight everyday from New-York City, I found it very interesting and informative. However. I think programme should be left in the hand of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Newsnight team at their descration. !!!!!
NewYorker.
If ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists are offered a £100 bonus for a new angle on the cash-for-peerages scandal, why do you expect us amateurs to create a two minute recording for free!?!
I think that the demographic of Newsnight viewers fall between the gaps of your typical Myblogger and the great unwashed; more used to eating chips and cod from a tabloid than actually contributing anything meaningful to one. A little more focus on a single issue (particuarly one that has a whiff of gossip, rumour, and scandal) and a gentle editorial hand of guidance *might* bring out a few more budding Pulitzer chasing auteurs. The 'oh my' might be a good tag for the discombobulation felt by the 'Nighties suddenly given the chance to take over the asylum. Personally I'd like to do a piece (properly funded!) on the emergence of fine art as a multi-million dollar internet success story. No bombs, corruption, or Shakespearian faux politics.
Can't you be a bit more original?
Oh, it's a proof again that content is king. Where's the queen? ;-)
I am waiting to bow for her majesty:-)
Hope those smilies work.
I don't think the comments regarding UGC staying online are entirely fair.
Anyone who remembers Right to Reply on Channel 4 or watches NewsWatch on News 24 will know that viewers are more than competent at putting something together. Fair enough, they weren't recording or editing it, but the contributors do decide on the content and ask the questions of people and present a fair few minutes to camera.
Maybe asking for idea submissions and providing camera and sound persons for an afternoon would have yeilded more responses?
I think it's a good idea and would suggest you don't put a time limit on it. Perhaps invite contributions all year round and when something outstanding comes through perhaps air it at the end of the programme?
However, I can understand why bloggers are less than interested in appearing on air. I suspect many write as they do because it's anonymous - maybe they have a close affiliation with the topic they write on and can only do what they do because of their medium.
I also suspect some would be absolutely useless at it and prefer to criticize from the comfort of their chair. ;-)
I really like the idea of viewers being able to put a short 2 min package together then it being aired, an enlightened creative decision offering opportunity.
Minded that ´óÏó´«Ã½2 used to do similar with 'Video Nation' [1]
CHALLENGES:
How to make it more than simply a 'Points of View' type slot & not unduly tame.
Given some initial reluctance from contributors, may be too earlier an idea for this newly established 'social network' & perhaps the concept needs to be proven first as an extension of the blog, rather than calling for contributions straight to air.
Having worked in Social Networking (as part of Knowledge Management arena) - with a background in Consultancy - a killer app / idea often falls over & fails to take off as intended, given how users have been engaged beforehand & the way its been proposed to be rolled out and/or has been.
Would argue, that for users, before spending time & effort (2 min footage equates to how many hours effort?) contributors may wish to have more confidence in moderator/review policy before committing time, energies & reputation (esp if anonymity has to be sacrificed).
In social networking, enabling anonymity is very important concept, both for creator & consumer of content. Like radio/book, a consumer conjures up faces, bodies, background mannerisms/flaws to characters, whereas video often destroys/undermines those important illusions within seconds [2]
SUGGESTIONS:
As stepping stones to drawing in video UGC from Newsnight's fledging social network:
1) allow multi-media contributions to blog (pictures, voice, video)
2) allow a specific NCA type youtube contributions to Newsnight website (for registered/accountable users) then air best ones once a month, once a quarter.
3. allow other format compilations to 1) & 2)
4) allow anonymity.
5) copyright issues squared
6) offshoot of this could be to recycle user contributions for a NCA type h2g2 initiative [3]
OTHER FORMATS:
If the idea is too generate & capture original commentary & thought, then I hope Newsnight would be open to types of format such could be communicated in:
- documentary type filming of people, places, objects [4]
- animation [5]
SUMMARY:
As it happens, I am investing in some kit & s/w in the New Year sales, given the right deal.
So as one interested viewer, love to have a go if the offer is still open during 2007 & flexibility with (3) & (4) considered?
Yep,did like 'Daily Shows' spin on UGC :)
vikingar
[1] /videonation/history/today.shtml
[2]
[3] /dna/h2g2/dontpanic-tour
[4]
[5]
''What's surprising is that while many viewers are prepared to sit down and create lengthy and thoughtful blogs about what we're doing on Newsnight - or what we should be doing - which will be read by about 50,000 hardened blog watchers, almost noone seems to want to commit those thoughts to video, with a potential audience of a million viewers.''
The answer is surely simple - just ask Mr Paxman to surf into the blog page, and read out the comments as part of the television programme. If you could film his response, that might very well be even more entertaining than his first effort..
Good luck
Newsnight should focus on news and analysis. That's why you employ trained journalists. Why make the show into some kind amateurs' night out?
Maybe Paeter misses the point. Newsnight viewers probably feel very comfortable blogging, but less so appearing on film. Most sensible thought hits the pan once a camera is switched on.
Hi
I only occasionally manage to catch Newsnight and have only just subscribed to the newsletter and found the blog, so I didn't know about your request for 2 minute films.
However, I agree with Richard (9) and Jamie (10) - there's a big difference between writing something vaguely sensible on a blog and translating that into a piece of film which is not just going to get rejected or laughed-at. You are professionals at it - we are not and many of us (myself included) do not have the technology to achieve it. We also can't just take a few days off work at the drop of a hat to film it!
Maybe you should offer to make the short films yourselves, using material given by the audience.
A few thoughts:
If you have 2 minutes to spare, finish the programme 2 minutes earlier. If you think you have 2 minutes of airtime spare, think again - a bit harder next time.
All this "Have Your Say" rubbish only ends up 2 minutes of garbage - look at Sky Sports News. I'd rather poke my own eyes out.
As a generalisation, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ often ask for user content - there was something on submitting scripts a while back. I almost fancied a go. But did you ever read the T&C? You automaticaly lose all rights to your work and hand them over to the Beeb to exploit for their own ends. They were completely and totally unacceptable. I'd rather sit on my rear end and have people who are highly paid and who're supposed to be experts and professionals to fill that 2 minute slot.
It's not being inclusive. It's being cheap. Do your own job and think up some extra ideas in the day for your guaranteed license-fee financed income for life. If you're burned out I'm sure they need someone at Panorama - they've run out of ideas too and produce constantly poorly-produced material recently. It's the retirement home for burned out Producers.
Surprisingly, I'm quite well disposed to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Newsnight - that's why I find the idea of blaming viewers for not providing you with free content completely unacceptable. What say we all forget you ever asked this ridiculous question and start again, eh?
Now, get on with your job.
News Night seems to me unpopular from general public point of view though financially appears good due to commercials.
Obiously cryteria of financial support depend upon obediency with off record dictations, knowingly creation of contemnation in public openion & media.
To develop public interest basic requirement is independancy, impartiality & bravery.
Though it is hard but long lasting.
You have highlighted one rather depressing aspect of YouTube...
Spend two days editing a four-minute video and, three months later, it will have had 53 views.
But, grab forty-five seconds of wobbly footage of a squirrel, upload without editing and it will get 530 views, high ratings and comments.
I think you've rather missed the point about blogs.
The whole point is that they are cheap to run and allow individuals to express their views to whomever will listen.
If I could afford a digital video camera and a week off work I'd make a nice documentary for you about illiberal England and we'd both be happy.
But in the meantime, I lack the hardware and the leisure-time. C’est la vie!
Peter, please lets go back to old Newsnight standards. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of your editorial meetings. The serious journalists you have left must be saddened about the demise of this once great news programme.
Dealing with your two minute item. Crikey most people know that very little can be said in two minutes that will carry any impact. Believe it or not your average viewer knows that this is a silly and meaningless piece of nonsence.
If this carries on I'm not going to bother fighting the urge to go to sleep at 10.30!
DID YOU GET MY VIDEO ? (I've resubmitted the URL again). It is on Youtube but it's not a 'man & a cat' type. I spent a great deal of time on it, and am v grateful for the opportunity given by Newsnight.
Hey people, what is wrong with the viewers and taxpayers having a say ? Don't forget we pay our license fee. It's a shame that people haven't taken the opportunity to get their opinions across. People make news.
Users generated contents on making a film may be more entertaining than they are produced on the filmmakers' own way.
Quite frankly I prefer professionals who have done the research and are well informed to provide the coverage on TV and Radio. I tend to cringe when mr or mrs ordinary present their opinions on anything.
On a related matter, I have had enough of the interviews with people who have suffered the loss of a 'loved one' (why not relative?) etc being asked 'how they feel' on news broadcasts. Please stop it ´óÏó´«Ã½!
Actually, the problem for me is creativity. For a long time I've longed to write, record, or otherwise author pieces for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - even free! - but, to be quite honest, I wouldn't know what to say. The things that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ presents are always relevant and interesting... I'm not sure I could measure up to that.
Ref Ken Ticehurst #33
I trust your youtube contribution is not this 'ticehurst' [1] :)
But seriously, pse show your youtube link, something to gauge potential 2 min NN contributions would be useful.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
By the way, anyone filming for broadcast on the public highway is meant to have a permit from the local authority who in most cases they'll want you to have a million or so pounds of public liability insurance.
Either people are going to break the rules or you'll end up with a lot of 'shot in my bedroom/garden' films.
Perhaps you could also show part of this week's 'StoryFix', where Putin and Bush are described as 'Lovable Rogues' to warn of the dangers of going too far down this road of 'quick and dirty' news gathering.
Martin Hoscik wrote:
By the way, anyone filming for broadcast on the public highway is meant to have a permit from the local authority who in most cases they'll want you to have a million or so pounds of public liability insurance.
Don't know who told you this but it's not the case. It is true of parks though.
I'm wondering, Peter, if your viewpoint, as the blogger, upon whose entries we all (by and large) comment, has slightly clouded your understanding of how to explain how we should respond to your offer of opportunities?
You aren't actually, as I understand it, asking for video comments on Newsnight material, but instead for fresh pieces. And you haven't given any guidance on the context into which those are intended to fit. So that's a very different requirement to our comments here.
Now I don't have a problem with you seeking to see if useful material might be forthcoming, initially without payment. It is exploitative but normal. I don't have a problem with subject matter, or equipment or technique, or even with a two minute limit, and I'm sure there are ways around the anonymity thing. But Jeremy's phone footage is really confusing. Are you looking for something everyone can laugh at, a disconnected piece like a very short Video Nation, or as your normal video sections, something that can hang on a news hook or justify a studio discussion afterwards?
Implying that material would all pass through a site like Youtube or Google suggests that low picture quality will set anything aside anyway.
If you can clarify that, perhaps an extended deadline would be in order?
Sky News' 'interactive' attempt to engage viewers at 8pm doesnt really work. Simalarly I think this laudable attempt will fail too.
Unless it's a geninue attempt to uncover new talent -- which is cant be as the budget is being cut -- there is no value in Newsnighters expending the effort. The blog serves as an entirely suitable mechanism to discuss ideas and Mr Barron is, to his credit, suitably accessible by other means also.
Perhaps if you want to encourage user vision you should post 'exclusive' web content to stimulate video-blog discussions, as per Youtube. But why bother.
This 'open' approach is going to open a can of worms with releases, legal red tape etc. I expect.
Just give up.
I sent you (Peter) a good story-starter a few weeks ago (courtesy of YouTube: but, unusually, didnt receive a response. Perhaps just use YouTube/GoogleVideo as a research tool, to see what piques the public consciousness. Then again maybe not. Is this really Newsnight's demo?
Martin Hoscik wrote: "By the way, anyone filming for broadcast on the public highway is meant to have a permit from the local authority who in most cases they'll want you to have a million or so pounds of public liability insurance. Either people are going to break the rules or you'll end up with a lot of 'shot in my bedroom/garden' films."
This could be the place for a fascinating discussion of "guerrilla", shoestring, tabletop, and back room video-making. But I suspect it might make the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s top-class crews nervous.
I hereby offer to put together a piece with vikingar in the New Year (22). I know someone who can do a very professional job on the camerawork and editing. Maybe for free, if the subject interests them. And I can think of a few subjects that both vikingar and I seem to agree are interesting, some of which we have a slightly different angle on. He he he.
We also have an joint interest in social networking, as does the person I'm thinking of for the video technics, as does the Beeb.
This is a serious suggestion. But it's wise to think through that such amateurs do need time to fit things like this into our busy schedules. (And I would need an email address from somewhere, somehow. rdrake98 at gmail dot com is worth a try in this direction.)
I hereby kindly decline your constructive offer 'Richard Drake' #44
As per my #22 - I value 'anonymity' - a key aspect of Social Networking, I would argue.
But hopefully possible to engage in other ways e.g. via user led threads on NN, where we could explore different opinions, esp if multi media options enabled *
* to compliment stories already shown on NN, could create an interesting pool of pointers/links/thoughts/research etc for journalists looking to revist story at a later date & build on such.
vikingar
As a Christian I believe in Darwinism [1a] & Evolution [1b] & Science ….. & God.
As a healthy sceptical professional, I am open to examine tangible evidence based arguments on virtually any subject.
Therefore, as a rational adult, I cannot stomach the myopic self supporting, self serving & deluded notions of:
- Intelligent Design [2]
- Creationism [3]
MOTIVATION: Religious fundamentalism
REASON: Recruitment & Influence
EVIDENCE: disingenuous use of 'faith'
Religious fundamentalists (whether Christian or Islamic or other) are undermining their respective faiths & peoples tolerance for such when they tout such pap.
I note with some interest, that often those who promote & buy into Intelligent Design & Creationism also do similar with 911 Conspiracy Theories & similar.
In this case CREATIONISM does live up to its name, as they attempt to CREATE the 'faith based evidence' with pseudo science & 'faith based reason'
Still its good for a laugh :)
If they are right & we are ALL wrong, then suppose many/all will happily be converted by the production & upheld investigation into their real tangible evidence !
Until then (if ever) such fundamentalists cannot wish something into existence * & expect that to be taught in lieu of credible scientific findings of universal acclaim.
* counting the years in the bible ** to 'determine' the age of the earth (6,000 years?) & the discounting dinosaur remains as planted evidence.
** an historic record of innumerable rewrites & of questionable historic impartiality.
Fundamentalists, who tout Intelligent Design & Creationism are demanding PARITY based on their scientific notion of clicking a pair of 'ruby slippers' combined with a faith based exclamation of 'abracadabra'
Such pap should not be let near schools & young impressionable minds, period.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1a]
[1b]
[2]
[3]
pse ignore my #45
Intended for other blog [1]
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1] /blogs/newsnight/2006/11/monday_27th_november_2006.html
Hi vikingar, I fully understand that you wish to preserve anonymity. But somebody, somewhere in the world, presumably does know who you are? I would be very happy to give an undertaking never to divulge your identity and to provide character references to give you as much confidence as possible that I'd keep my word on that.
The reason I'm persevering is that I'd like to deal with some subjects on which our difference of view could shed light. I believe that if we cooperated we could do a better job of that.
Your unintentional posting (46 I presume you meant) makes the point rather well. As another Christian - maybe of a subtly different kind - I fully agree with you about young earth creationism being 'pap' but I'm not so happy with your lumping it together with Intelligent Design, a theory that I'm not convinced by but is for me in different territory vis-a-vis the scientific method. Your language about 911 Conspiracy Theories is milder than I've seen from you before. I respect quite a lot of what you've written in that area. It's another place I'd like to present our two different approaches, in an ideal world.
I'd also like to deal with the way Christian student groups and others are having to face the challenges of militant Islamism. There is a very active debate within the Christian scene about this area, about the right way to respond. I think that in your staunch realism about Muslim radicalism you'd add a fresh and valuable perspective to this area.
Anyhow, I accept we don't have to be within the same edit, video-wise, for some of that debate to happen. I look forward to a fruitful new year of hopefully deepened, more effective discussion.
I'm delighted to say that following my plea of last week about the dearth of Oh My Newsnight entries, there has been what I would describe as a steady trickle of high quality contributions this week. There'll be a chance to vote for them soon, then watch out for them on air in early January. Thanks very much.
Peter
I still think Paxo's phonecam film will take some beating !!
Thanks Ryan (42) I did watch that YouTube piece you sent - sorry I failed to get back to you
Peter
Citizen journalism is based upon the trust people will give to the medium they are dealing with. It is not only about the films submitted, it is also about the relationship between the media and its potential viewers. There is an obvious generational issue. Newsnight viewers are not likely to be holding a digital camera.
We can't just blame the punters can we? I definitely know more than 400 filmmakers members of the East-End Film society...some are doing it full-time, others as a hobby..some are in and out. How serious are you about showing people's work? What are the rewards?
In the light of Prime Minister Tony Blair statement about the UK's hand in the slave trade this film made with the in-kind support of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the Shoreditch Trust as well as Hackney College is of interest to Newsnight viewers. It is a modern take on the slave trade by Shoreditch young people.
The blip? It is 9 min. long. Have a look at it if deemed interesting enough I am willing to make an effort to cut down a shorter version. But I want to stress that because of the subject matter and the heated feelings around the debate, to cut it down would not allow the film to set the right tone for the debate...But have a look first, please on:
Influence (1807-2007)
My Show reel:
Best,
HD.
ps: a DV master is available upon request. Apologies for The Google video compression requirements and low visual quality.
Re : Geek Week / Vlogging / Digital Arousal!
Hi Newsnight,
I applaud the way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is embracing the inevitable - namely the advance of New media and User Generated Content. I have been involved with vlogging and kept a video weblog for a year - so with your comming geek week I thought you may like to take a look.
Dutchvlog was on the Dutch TV in January '06 (link to tv item in sidebar of vlog) and has since published free online video-tutorials on how to produce your own media (MovieMaker Tutorials) and start a video-weblog (Dutchvlog Tutorials) -(in Dutch) Everything has been done open source and has not cost me a cent (including the screen capture and compression codecs) - and I have not had one second of instruction in the use of computers or media production methods.
Dutchvlog will be a real vlog tv channel at the start of next year with regular shows and an ironic perusal of current global events (local media for global people). My investment will ultimately have been a few hundred euro's.
I congratulate Jeremy on his first vlog - the genre was spot on! I pod both Newsnight and the Breakfast Takeaway for when I'm on the go…..great stuff - thanks! BTW my shows are poddable too.
Ron Langdon
Digitally aroused expat based in Amsterdam.
Vlog -
Website -
MovieMaker Tutorials -
Dutchvlog Tutorial -
A Blog is a good way of saying what you want to say. Many videopodcasts are pointless because they're just blogs with cameras pointed at someone's face. I think people don't want to make TV versions of their opinions because opinions don't need to be filmed.
I think it's fair to say that as making a TV programme about opinions goes, we would like to leave it to Newnight. Would we like it to be our opinion on there? Yes!
Words convey opinions with great efficiency (if they're well chosen). A picture of someone's face doesn't.
Sending in home clips works very well for breaking news, or for Watchdog or many things where the message or reason behind the video is something real. Rants, opinions, suggestions, criticisms, poetry are abstract, and without words they struggle to exist.
If it is our thoughts your are really soliciting, then allow us to send you them as plain, simple words. If not, then you need to re-explain your request!
Noted with an inner wry smile, Mr Paxman's remarks about UGC-video at the end of Wednesday 29Nov06 Broadcast.
Q. 'tongue in cheek' or 'middle finger' commentary?
vikingar
I would happily make a short video but sadly lack the resources and time to do it at present. Maybe Santa will bring me a video camera for Christmas but of course that will be too late.
I am infuriated by the constant one sided stories about climate change and now the need for road pricing to 'address' this problem. Yet again, we saw this week, the UK is the only country in Europe to stick to its commitment on cutting CO2. Our politicians, in their determination to look tough on Co2 and the causes of Co2 are denting our competitiveness for no real gain.
For the moment though I shall have to stick to just writing about it.
Get real,Newsnight.The only people likely to make you a film for free are graduates who failed to get a place on a ´óÏó´«Ã½ training scheme.
Film for the future? that's not our job...the whole point of blogging or writing to the press is to off load responsibility and report the leadership of our area to the right people best able to deal with the issues of the day... You are have the skills and SEV and the ability to make money and connections out of the activities which are ruinous for us...
So we a simply too modernised to appear as great company on tv and in the real world we would be satarised resocialized economically mocked and increasingly distressed for even daring to make a contribution...
Most politicians are not good enough to be on telly either ...
Only those with experience and top qulaity should appear.
The forward looking fun challenge of appearance and applause has a role reversal expense that is not affordable unless you are an MA quality socialite living in the right area
Benedict
Ref Charles #57
Good - everyone deserves a 2nd chance :)
vikingar