An interesting New York Times story I just read about how YouTube and CNN are letting users upload questions to presidential candidates via video. I think we're on the right track with our project, and it's an important one, no doubt about it.
« The power of letters.... | Main | Second Life Keeps Popping Up in My Life »
An interesting New York Times story I just read about how YouTube and CNN are letting users upload questions to presidential candidates via video. I think we're on the right track with our project, and it's an important one, no doubt about it.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://ehub.journalism.ku.edu/admin/mt-tb.cgi/3286
Comments (2)
Nate Martin:
If there's anything that makes our simple project stand out among the flying cars, it has to do with thinking like this (from the article):
"[David] Bohrman, [Washington bureau chief for CNN], said he had been surprised by how few questions there were about Iraq, how broad the age range was of the questioners and how many of the videos showed a person just talking into the camera. He said that although he had expected some flashy production values and backgrounds, the simplicity of those submitted made him think more about the question."
1. Just because mainstream media pumps Iraq news (somewhat justifiably) to us 24/7 doesn't mean that that is the only issue that people care about (although that does contrast with McCombs and Shaw's agenda setting theory). There are a lot of things that people would like to communicate with their elected leaders about.
2. While CNN works on its new interlude graphics and snazzy anchor backdrops (and is baffled that citizen journalists aren't doing the same), you don't need that kind of shit to make a point -- in fact, flashy production is distracting. No revolutions have begun because of a video. Text is revolutionary.
Posted by Nate Martin | July 23, 2007 10:20 AM
Reply to this comment
Posted on July 23, 2007 10:20
Nate Martin:
If there's anything that makes our simple project stand out among the flying cars, it has to do with thinking like this (from the article):
"[David] Bohrman, [Washington bureau chief for CNN], said he had been surprised by how few questions there were about Iraq, how broad the age range was of the questioners and how many of the videos showed a person just talking into the camera. He said that although he had expected some flashy production values and backgrounds, the simplicity of those submitted made him think more about the question."
1. Just because mainstream media pumps Iraq news (somewhat justifiably) to us 24/7 doesn't mean that that is the only issue that people care about (although that does contrast with McCombs and Shaw's agenda setting theory). There are a lot of things that people would like to communicate with their elected leaders about.
2. While CNN works on its new interlude graphics and snazzy anchor backdrops (and is baffled that citizen journalists aren't doing the same), you don't need that kind of shit to make a point -- in fact, flashy production is distracting. No revolutions have begun because of a video. Text is revolutionary. (Or, in this case, I guess video that acts like text is revolutionary).
Posted by Nate Martin | July 23, 2007 10:21 AM
Reply to this comment
Posted on July 23, 2007 10:21