…just the tip of the iceberg….
Now we’ve completed our initial pilot 3 Travel Channel Academy seminars. We have passed some 65 people through the sessions. More are to come. Many more. Starting in September, we are going to run 2-3 sessions a month in NY, DC and LA, along with a few one-offs in a few other locations.
But even this, I think, is just the tip of a massive iceberg.
The iceberg has many names – “Citizen Journalists”, “User Generated Content”, “Democratization of Television”.
Whatever you call it, that iceberg is headed straight for the Titanic that is conventional broadcasting – and good things too.
One can readily see the appeal of a Travel Channel with 1,000 “contributors” around the world who have been given basic training and an introduction into what The Travel Channel is looking for. It greatly expands the reach and scope of Travel Channel… so much so, that I would venture to guess that once this takes hold, people will look with some measure of astonishment that the paucity of sources other channels used to have.
This is particularly true in a world of online video. Because as we move now from a ‘broadcasting’ or ‘cablecasting’ environment to online video, the demand for lots of content expands exponentially, to almost incomprehensible numbers. All in video, all the time.
Who is going to provide it?
For the Travel Channel, they’re going to have an army at the ready – an army that, by the way, has also been made to feel part of the travel channel ‘community’. It is a very different model for cablecasting….
And what you can do for Travel Channel, you can also do for Animal Planet… or ESPN.. or HGTV, or a dozen other channels.. or a hundred or more.
So what is a TJ?
A TJ is someone who has elected to move to the next step in the expanding world of online video – a participant – a contributor as well as a viewer.
We think this is a pretty good place to be.
43 Comments
rosenblumtv August 08, 2007
Dear Nino,
“dates… shows… ”
What are you, the DA?
I have built tv stations all over the world that work on this principle. Go to my website and take a look. That is ‘real’ television.
Now, you’ve had your turn to comment on my work on my website. My turn on yours. I’ve got lots to say.
Nino August 08, 2007
COMMENTS? Work Michael not comments, you know damn well what I’m talking about it. Actual and real television work, programs, segments that appeared on broadcasting television, something that clients actually paid to have the VJ’s work on the TV for the viewing public to see, dates, shows, programs. How many other ways do you want me to tell you.
Cliff Etzel August 07, 2007
Nino – Elitist comments like yours have diminished your so called professional credentials to the point of no return.
It’s interesting to watch you and $ (formerly known as min!-me) become so outwardly agitated when those who are supporters of the Solo VJ paradigm speak openly and honestly without malice about what we are learning, yet you both come here to provoke and spread negativity about what we want to accomplish here in a spirit of community. It really doesn’t matter what you have to say, because your derisive comments only drive away those whom you are trying to speak to. We don’t care what kind of experience you claim to have. Reality is, you have destroyed all credibility with your continued negativity.
Please continue to talk negatively all you want about my work if it makes you feel better about yourself – I really don’t care. You’re digging yourself deeper into a hole as it reflects upon the character of who you are and what levels you’re willing to go to to try and make yourself look better than everyone else – especially in a public forum.
rosenblumtv August 07, 2007
Where what, Nino? Where can you see examples of successful people I have trained? Look at the video volunteers article. My question, where can I upload MY comments to YOUR website?
Nino August 07, 2007
Michael, for the hundredth time, WHERE? Stop hiding yourself behind words and catchy phrases, there’s only so much manure that you can spread around, just answer questions once and for all (honestly and accurately), prove me wrong and I’ll go away.
rosenblumtv August 07, 2007
Dear Nino
There is a Latin phrase you might like:
Res ipsa loquitur
It means, roughly, let the facts speak for themselves.
My work is out here for you and all to see and comment on. You have no hesitation in commenting a great deal on my work on my own website, which I am happy to let you do.
Now I ask the same for your work on your website.
Res ipsa loquitur
Let me know when I can start to upload my comments.
Nino August 07, 2007
Michael, you don’t have to wait for my web site to make comments, just answer questions about the predictions you made and the current reality; with numbers and real facts not preaching about “it will happen†or quote some sixteenth century writer. There’s only so much talk you can do, soon or later you will have to start showing results.
I did not create this hostility, you did. You created a negative campaigning from the very start by blasting and downgrading what we do for a living to prove that you had a better solution. The problem has been that everything that you have said about current methods of productions are untrue, you have exaggerated production costs by creating non existing crews and budget so you can make yourself look like a hero. You have been using methods of productions a comaprison that went out over 25 years ago and not once you mentioned about current methods of productions. So you either lied to prove your point or you just have no clue of what professional productions are all about. I believe that you have no clue because you were never involved in any real productions, prove me wrong, show me your work. The simple fact that you considered work done by VJ, like the 5 Takes, as quality work clearly shows that you just have no clue or training on the aesthetic of creating images. Every one of the scene done by your VJ on those 5Takes show could be greatly improved, not by additional equipment but by knowledge, it would have taken just as much time to do it right as it took to do it wrong, unfortunately whoever was behind the camera just did not know, they were not properly trained and the most likely reason is that the trainer did not know either.
You have brainwashed these people in believing that only bare minimum knowledge is necessary to create video, just look at Cliff’s work, probably your most avid supporter, his work is just awful but instead of encouraging him or people like to move on with the learning process you have encouraged them to continue on the current path claiming that everything else is unnecessary even thou you know well that will lead them to nowhere.
You are a good talker Michael but you are causing a lot of damage, not to people like me as your were originally planning but to your own supporters.
Cliff Etzel August 07, 2007
$ (formerly known as min!-me) – I thought as much. Literally given the opportunity to prove your position and instead aren’t willing to take the chance of being proven wrong.
$ August 07, 2007
Thanks for the offer but I’ll decline.
I choose to improve and learn elsewhere which translates into dollars in my pocket.
Not out of it.
rosenblumtv August 07, 2007
First of all, we don’t offer a degree. The class is only 4 days. I realize television is not all that hard, but I don’t think anyone realistically expects a four day course to provide them with sufficient training for full time employment – even at Fox News.
That having been said, the course has enormous value to those who want to improve their skills or a have a basic introduction to the medium.
I have enormous confidence in the course, having taught it for nearly 20 years in one form or another.
Why don’t you submit your work. Let’s take a look at it. I’ll offer you at 50% reduction in the fees. If I have not improved your work after the course, I will refund all of your money. How’s that?
$ August 07, 2007
Excuses on why classrooms aren’t able to truly train people are just that. Excuses.
If you can’t truly train people you shouldn’t be claiming you can train them by offering classes and collecting tuition from students. Or offering degrees in areas of study which, those same classes, are supposed to train people for real world work.
Pingback: » F.E.A.R and the detractors of the Solo VJ Paradigm - bluprojekt/Cliff Etzel - Video Journalist
Cliff Etzel August 07, 2007
Well said Mindy 🙂
Mindy McAdams August 07, 2007
University curriculum moves more slowly than a glacier. Every journalism program in the U.S. is struggling to train the undergraduates for the newsrooms of today. And what do they want? (The newspaper newsrooms — not the TV newsrooms.) They want a journalist who can write a brief for the Web site and a long-form story for the printed paper — AND shoot video and, preferably, edit it too. If you have a photojournalism degree but you can’t shoot and edit video, it will be very hard for you to get an internship, never mind a job.
You can say what you like about “Those who can’t, teach.” If the best I can do in the time I have to teach them is to give them two short video assignments, then I’ll do that. If we could give them a full-semester course, we would. But there are many factors that determine what is permitted to be taught and what is possible to teach in the university. Please don’t assume it’s simple. Don’t assume you know how things are done inside someone else’s environment.
Cliff Etzel August 07, 2007
More rantings from the detractors. LOL
rosenblumtv August 07, 2007
Your questions hardly make me feel uncomfortable. I have been doing this for twenty years. Do you think you are the first to ask this? I have been doing “VJ” work since 1988. However, I have found people who can do this far better than I. Mine is OK, but hardly brilliant. There are much better around. My ‘theory’ is all about unleashing talent – and not necessarily mine. I unleashed that a long time ago and took it where it could go. There are far more talented folks than I in the world. Maybe you are one of them. Why don’t you upload your work and let me take a look. I would be curious to see. And I am not insulting you – since you shoot and cut and interview, let me see what you can do. Believe me, I am always on the lookout for real talent.
$ August 07, 2007
Actually I do shoot. And edit. Even interview, every day, for the last 30 years. No brag, just fact.
For someone so proud of the sure future success of “VJ”, you continue to be unable to live up to your claims. Now you want to claim being a “VJ” is just doing camera work?
It is a very fair request with no need for me or any other person who might be interested in your VJ school.
Why aren’t you doing VJ yourself and proving your own theories?
The answer. or inability to answer, to that question speaks volumes.
I have not insulted you personally. I am only asking questions which make you uncomfortable to answer directly.
rosenblumtv August 07, 2007
Dear $
I am afraid that shooting for 5takes does define VJ. I have been working VJ since the day I walked out of CBS News with a camera under my arm in 1988. How do you think this all got started? For a someone in the ‘news business’ you don’t seem to have done to much research – (rather typical for Fox News, I have to say – filled with inuendeo and insult, but a bit light on facts). However, you have failed, in your flailing, to answer any of the issues I put to you: Have you ever shot and cut anything, or are you just a functionary? Where is my invitation to your newsroom. Let’s see what it really looks like.
best
rosenblumtv August 07, 2007
Dear Nino,
Many thanks for yet more gratuitous comments.
Please let me know when I will be able to post my opinions on YOUR work …on YOUR site.
best regards
$ August 07, 2007
Mr. Rosenblum does not shoot nor produces any product by himself which ends up on the air. You don’t see him. You don’t hear him. Not unless it is in his closed environment of the class room.
His claims of shooting for Take 5 is not VJ work.
I mentioned earlier that my criticism of places of learning, which charge people money for “knowledge” that is not being offered by those who could not hold a job in the real world also includes many other universities and places of learning. Charging students for money and filling them with unfounded expectations for their future which, in the end, does not lead to employment.
Teachers who can’t do, yet teach.
It is much more profitable to be a teacher. You can charge those who know nothing. Have them spend time and money doing something which does not lead anywhere.
Now the travel channel classes are supposed to be worth it because other “teachers”, not working in the real world, feel they are learning more which they can then turn around and use in their classes. This is classic blind leading the blind.
My newsroom is a blend of experienced older people and younger people who have talent and, like those of us “older” continue to learn to improve every day. Our classroom is reality where, if we don’t produce a product which generates revenue as well as return customers, we fail. Our return is hundreds of times higher than Mr. Rosenblum’s on all levels.
I don’t understand Mr. Rosenblum’s fear of youth. He seems to think that is something to fear. As if those of us who are older should be afraid just like he is.
Age differences in any business are what keep a company growing and successful. Television, both news and production, depends on one thing. People of any age who can day after day come in and produce a quality product which draws return viewers. With more competition that pool of viewers can’t help but become fragmented but, as mentioned earlier, the television news business I’m in, much to the chagrin of Mr. Rosenblum, is far from dead and remains a place which supplies real jobs with real benefits and a future. Unlike other empty promises made by others.
Why isn’t Mr. Rosenblum out creating a VJ product himself?
The answer is he can’t and won’t. It’s more profitable, as many others have learned in academia, it’s more profitable to teach because what you claim to know is not subject to real world business economics.
Nino August 07, 2007
In 37 years plus 8 of formal education in this business I’ve heard them by the dozens all with incredible ideas that will change the business of television forever. These visionaries usually hang around long enough to make some money and then disappear. Talk is cheap and usually these guys are good talker but soon or later they’ll have to start showing positive results, Rosenblum is no different.
Let’s look at the chronology of facts.
Five years ago Michael came on the scene with all kinds of plans and predictions.
Within few years most cable programing were to be done by VJs doing VJ style of shooting.
Reality check. In five years the only cable programs ever produced were by Michael himself, and very few of them too. The most famous, the 5Takes series in 3 years went from prime time to the bottom of the basement with 3 showing within 12 hours on the worst of television time and no rebroadcasting.
In the business of television this is a bad as a failure as it gets.
After making claims that many other shows are being produced by VJs Michael has not given a single name.
In five years only about five TV station have converted their news departments to VJs. If you count the number of station in operation in this country the VJ success rate ratio is about 1000 to 1. That’s below failure. While Michaels still claims success most TV stations are investing in high end HD equipment and VJ are not even a remote consideration. Michael himself has admitted that VJs in the newsroom is not being accepted here in the US as it has in Europe. I freelance for the BBC and many other British clients, in their own words in Europe VJ are being used to do the cheap and dirty work so the good crews can concentrate to do the most important and profitable shows.
After five years and allegedly thousand of trained VJs, Michael have produced only two that are actually making a living doing VJ work. Not a single one has come forward to defend Michael or to prove that VJ is a viable profession, not even here on Michael’s own turf. With Michael’s claim of over 9000 VJs trained both here and in Europe not even a simple idea exchange VJs forum exists. Keep in mind that with these many VJs a forum could be a very profitable operation, but there’s none.
According to the predictions that Michael made five years ago experienced and educated production people like myself were by now supposed to be out of business, extincted like Michaels told us. Well, five years later and my business has tripled to the point that I can only handle one third of the calls. I raised my rates to an all times high and not a single client even blinked. What VJs has done was a reversal of what Michael predicted, they have created an appreciation to quality, now client have something to compare to and they realize of how valuable skills are. Maybe one day VJs will make something of themselves, but at this rate most of us will be long retired.
Talk and self cheer leading can only go so far, soon or later talk will have to be shown as positive results.
On the other hand, every prediction that I made to Michael five years ago on the future success of VJs came true. Actually the factual results to date are even worse than my predictions.
The entire VJ program is being reduced to teaching the public on how to take better vacation pictures and the only money that is now being made if by charging the public $2500 for an elusive dream of making a TV appearance.
This is as pathetic as it gets.
Mindy McAdams August 07, 2007
It seems like most responsible adults would have to know that a four-day class does not guarantee them a job — or even one successful sale of a one-minute video. The class is not full of idiots. Maybe a few people come in with unreasonable expectations. Maybe those folks are disappointed. But most of the students are practical and intelligent. They don’t think they’re being handed a Golden Ticket.
steve August 07, 2007
Questions for $:
You say, “Students being taught things by others who could not succeed in the real world of the field they claim to be experts, yet students are charged a tuition for “knowledge†that leaves them with less money and no real paying job at the end of the “courseâ€.”
1) Which people that teach the course have not succeeded in the real world? Besides Rosenblum (who has been successful) and the Travel Channel Exec Producers (also successful) do you even know who teaches the course?
2) A college education that costs $ 60 – 100,000 does not guarantee a paying job at the end of the four years, or even guarantee that graduating students will be qualified for a job. What twisted reasoning leads you to expect that a $2,000 4 day seminar should leave someone with a paying job?
Pingback: Good reads for 08.06.07 : the x degree: exploring and redefining multimedia storytelling
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
Well, I think I did pretty well in sussing out what your newsroom looks like, but if I am wrong, invite me over for lunch. I’ll pay. Lets go kick the tires.
As for The Travel Academy, it is not a trade school. It does not promise full time employment after graduation. Read Cindy McAdam’s account of the time she spent there. No one goes away unhappy.
As for my own shooting, I as just down in Buenos Aires shooting 5Takes Lat Am. I shoot all the time. Since you are supposed to be in the TV news business, which deals in video, I have to wonder when was the last time you picked up a camera and produced a piece?
$ August 06, 2007
Your assumptions about who and what age working in my newsroom show, once again, your own lack of touch with reality.
Sure we have young people. They also happen to have talent and work with others, like myself, who can claim to have worked in broadcast news for thirty years. Make that getting paid to work in broadcast news for thirty years.
The only thing which bothers me about this VJ thing are people like yourself who tell less than the whole truth about what is going on in the television news industry. Not just news, production as a whole. On both counts your VJ model falls well short. The only thing you seem to have going is yet another school.
Like many schools of this nature, your goals have little to do with actual employment for the graduates. A charge which can also be made against many other places with even better reputations as places of learning.
Students being taught things by others who could not succeed in the real world of the field they claim to be experts, yet students are charged a tuition for “knowledge” that leaves them with less money and no real paying job at the end of the “course”.
Again, where are your JK Rowlings? You have none. You don’t even have a VJ show that you can point to which beats all comers. Zero!
For years now you make claim after claim about “knowing” but when your theory gets puts to the test against real competition where the audience gets to choose, they don’t choose VJ.
Even the Travel Channel knows this. Thus the time slot for Take 5 and the paltry amount of money you offer those who might get the chance to “contribute”, after they’ve paid you for the “privilege”.
If this VJ theory is so good, such a success, why aren’t you doing it yourself? Producing product that does what you claim it will?
You and I know the reason why. That’s why it’s better for you to “teach” because the truth is it can’t be done to the level of success you claim.
You don’t even have enough faith in your ideas to do it yourself.
When was the last time you actually picked up a camera and VJ’d yourself, producing a stellar product that got the attention and acclaim, not to mention generated revenue?
Certainly not in a year that began with the number 2. Why is that?
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
You may find this interesting:
http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/travel-channel-meets-the-networked-economy/
Mindy was in the 2nd group.
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
Dear $
What upsets you so much about the VJ thing is that it is your profession that is under siege. I understand. You thought you had a future working for Fox News. In fact, look around your newsroom. Is there anyone there over the age of 40? Very few, I will bet. And the downward pressure on budgets is unrelenting. Now, a whole new economic model is presenting itself, and this thing you thought would carry you to your retirement does not look like such a sure bet. I would say, in fact, that it is pretty unlikely now to do so. There is a whole generation rising up, a veritable tidal wave of 18 year olds who can shoot on their home cameras, (which happen to be HD) and cut on their laptops. They can make TV in about 1% of the time it takes you, and at about 1% of the cost. What are you gonna do?
Jim August 06, 2007
Two things.
First, VJ news aggregators are slowly appearing. Though some of them have already failed, I can again point you right back to silicon valley.
Read the book “Search,” and see how many search engines there were. Google takes in a billion a year. They make no product other than free information. Their costs include thousands of small servers that they now build themselves, and the internet backbone, as well as a large payroll, including engineers who sit around just thinking all day. The ROI is staggering.
Second, I did a VJ piece on the recent immigration issue, and wanted to find some facts about President Bush’s meeting with Felipe Calderon.
I went to CNN.com, nothing. Tried Drudge, since he has a million links. Nothing. Tried BBC. Nothing. Went to Fox and found video of the meeting. It had no date and was in the top listing for immigration reform. It took a final stop at wikipedia to find out that the meeting was in May, 2007.
The news sites by the major networks are not keeping up. They are throwing stuff they already shot for broadcast onto their websites without even a production date. That’s as useful as just opening “For Whom the Bell Tolls” to any page and trying to tell for whom it tolled.
Back to the Foxnews article. At first I thought, “Wow! How relevant! A recent meeting.” But trying to verify my sources left me quite unhappy – especially when I found out when it did happen.
Network News or Wikipedia? Who is trustworthy? Who can be counted on for answers? In this post I’ve shifted away a bit from “who’s gonna pay for it, to a previous argument about who will believe it.
A recent comparison of an online encyclopedia (One of the major ones that might be in your bookshelf now) to wikipedia using peer review, showed that wikipedia was right much more than the encyclopedia.
As for the networks, and the sites that depend on them and the older media, found on aggregator sites like drudge ,had no useful info at all. Indeed, even the illustrious google of my previous post turned up nothing.
I know that this is not empirical data, but in the words of Dr. Evil, “I need the info, people.”
I’ll post my VJ bit before too long for helpful critique. First I want to sell it for a grand 🙂
Jim
$ August 06, 2007
Maybe it would be nice for you to tell the whole story. You did not supply the gear to them for free.
Each and every on of those “students’ was charged $2,500 just to attend the course. If they supplied their own camera which met your high standards, you would generously knock off $250 from that course price. If they supplied their own laptop, you’d knock off another $250. Wow! Now they only have to pay you two thousand dollars! Of course you don’t pay for their airfare, food or lodging which got them to this point where they can “earn” money as a VJ.
So how far ahead are they after all is shot and edited? Still well below any number where they can claim to be making any kind of money even if it is a part time job. They seem to be paying you for the privilage. Who else is going to buy their product besides you?
Nope, it’s sure not a full time job! In fact it’s pretty hard for you to point to any of your grads who have a full time job being a VJ anywhere other than some far off European country or helping you teach classes.
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
Ummm
In these first cases the pieces were shot and cut in a day or two. We provided the gear or they had it already. There was no travel and no hotel as we are more interested in the creativity of the pieces than yet another look at the pyramids. And for someone just starting out, no, I think a thousand bucks is pretty good for their first shot. Its not a full time job, it does not profess to be – but its an entre to a new industry. I, for one, would not want to do the math of what an employee of say, Fox News makes vs. what Murdoch profits from their labors. Now there is someone getting royally ripped off..
$ August 06, 2007
A bit of basic math for those who think “wow, a thousand bucks!”
How many days work? How much money spent paying for gas, food and hotels if needed? How much did they spend to get a lap top editor and camera? Was all that stuff free for them or did they have to pay for it? How much time, days, to edit a final product. Then send it off for a “maybe” thousand bucks?
OK, produce one, then what? Where is the next thousand bucks going to come from? Another attempt on a different subject that might or might not pay off? That’s quite a life for some who probably have no real life. Not to mention real life responsibilities which require a regular check balanced with a realistic labor rate in return.
Even JK Rowling wouldn’t waste her time and efforts for that.
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
Actually, What’s Your Trip, which we are producing for Travel Channel will be made up entirely of pieces from Academy grads. We will pay up to $1000 per piece and have purchased some already… There will be other paying sources from Travel Channel as well. This is part of a larger, integrated approach to the TJ concept. I don’t think that there were Philp Roths on the day the printing press was invented. They took a few more weeks to emerge.. but they are surely out there.
$ August 06, 2007
My point being those who take the course are still a long way from being able to claim they know how to produce a product that people will want to watch or advertisers will want to pay to have their commercials in. Unless of course everything is based on “cheap” and bottom dollar views.
That is a formula for failure. Next thought, how many “JK Rowling’s” or “Phillip Roth’s” have been produced by the VJ classes. The answer is zero.
This VJ game is not about producing a product which draws a mass audience nor making large amounts of money for anyone other than those who teach the classes. For all the analogies using famous authors names, there is not one VJ, nor VJ show, which can come close to assuming that role.
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
Of course, 5takes ran for four seasons, which is a pretty good run in anyone’s book. I have had dozens of ‘professionally produced pilots’ which never got past the pilot stage…. as does everyone else. This argument is entirely specious. And yes, most authors from Philip Roth to JK Rowling did indeed start as grade schoolers who learned how to spell and write. Neither of those two was ever employed by “Fox Publishing” as a ‘writer’. Didn’t need it. Don’t need it now.. or even want it.
$ August 06, 2007
Mr. Rosenblum confuses the ability to produce television with the ability to produce a commercially viable product.
Much like the grade schooler who learns how to spell words then leaps to the conclusion he is now an author.
Technically they may be an author but few if any will part with their money to pay for what is written. So it goes for VJs. Lots of people with basic skills which aren’t going to take them as far as they have been lead to believe.
The ratings and low ad interest for the Take-5 show, as well as it’s assigned time slot by those who foot the bill for production is proof the money is not following the claims of those doing the preaching.
Eric Blumer August 06, 2007
It is time to refine your arguments. Be more specific. The broad generalizations no longer work for me. On either side.
The “old” television model is still intact. I don’t see anything that indicates it is going away “completely.” It is too broad of a generalization to completely “kill off” the old way of producing journalism. (Or production.)
Yes there is a new breed. Yes, video journalism has more outlets. Yes, this is a good thing, and yes there is opportunities for quality video journalism to be produced.
But I do not see how that translates into the death of large camera, two or three person news and information being produced.
The fact is that television and computers are going to merge. We will watch one television/computer and it will be interactive. We can work on it. Or we can watch it. There will be unlimited number of video programs. Niche audiences will find niche content. There will be a lot of content – but not the astronomical audience sizes – unless its for popular programming. News audiences will watch those outlets whom they trust. Interactivity will allow rebuttals, corrections and input from the public.
But I think trained journalists who abide to a Code of Ethics will be valued and have a place. Companies/outlets who provide news will depend on experienced journalists and video journalists who demonstrate trustworthy ethical judgements – along with quality craft. Audiences who want fair, honest news and information will quickly sort out those who provide that. Audiences who want quality visuals will sort out which ones provide that too.
I think there will be some higher end productions that will take more time. I also think there will be quick turn arounds.
I think there are new opportunities, but I don’t think the end is inevitable for one side or the other. Both are different tools and different approaches that I think will have audiences.
Current networks and news/info outlets will need to incorporate the new breed of video journalism and interactivity/participation.
They have started doing this.
But at some point, facts need to be separated from fiction. Quality from crap.
That is what you need to develop: A mechanism that allows facts to be separated from fiction. A website that allows the deletion of fictional remarks/accusations. A website that locks in place facts. That way, you will have a website that people can trust.
rosenblumtv August 06, 2007
On the contrary, I am quite proud of what I am doing, believe in it totally, and am also quite proud of the people who participate.
The act of ‘making television’ is not so hard. In fact, pretty much anyone can learn to do it fairly quickly. Whether they have creative talent or not is another story, and something I cannot teach – nor can anyone else. But what I can do is empower them and unleash them.
Is this frightening to people how have spent their lives working in the old TV industry? You bet it is.. and understandably so.
It turns out that there is no ‘secret skill’ to doing this. And as the web goes to video, there is an exploding market for those who can deliver cheaply and reasonably. It’s a whole new world and a whole new industry.
The days of spending days or weeks agonizing over the ‘production’ of a piece of video which can be cranked out in a matter of hours are rapidly drawing to a close. The business is going to become a lot more competitive with a lot more people participating. And good thing!
For those trapped in the ‘old’ television model, sorry to say but y0ur days are quite clearly numbered.
Watching closely August 06, 2007
You are robbing these people of their hard earned money.
You are playing off their hopes that one day the can work for the travel channel when in reality, most of them will go through your “bootcamp” and come out the other side with barely enough knowledge to shoot thir home movies.
Makiing television is more than pointing a camera and pushing the button. It takes way more than what you teach in your weak class. I feel sorry for these folks. and YOU should be ashamed of yourself.
$ August 06, 2007
The advertisers will come if the product draws an audience. That is the key. Is it a product which truly is “better”? The market place will decide.
Cliff Etzel August 06, 2007
Jim – you raise an interesting point. The current crop of pro shooters act as though there is only one way to VJ – their way.
Yahoo probably thought they were untouchable – then Google comes along and blows the doors wide open. Yahoo is still reeling from the Google juggernaut. The current way of doing video as it pertains to broadcast television is lame if what I watched by flipping the channel all day today is any indication.
The trickle down effect of technology has the detractors scrambling to try and stop the unstoppable it appears to me.
YouTube is NOT the poster child for the VJ paradigm – I don’t even visit YouTube simply because the quality of material is substandard.
I do have concerns about the viability of pure VJ’ism in its current state. We have all these limitations being imposed by broadcast channels because of the old way of doing things – even from the current selection of training options. You can’t shoot a project with a small three chip camera – it has to be a broadcast camera. You have to edit on Final Cut Pro or Avid – otherwise you’re not professional. What a load of crap. Yet the detractors love to play upon peoples insecurities to keep them in check – just as the elite has done to the vast majority of the population for centuries.
Given the proper VJ boot camp training to those who are already visually literate, and the result is a source of content creators that can more than meet the needs of broadcasters – both over the airwaves and online. It’s a question now of whether advertisers are willing to back this new way of creating content – for they are the ones that ultimately pay the content creators through the broadcast venue.
Jim August 05, 2007
I just spent the last hour cruising youtube. I know it is an hour that I will never get back – lost in the ether forever, and to what purpose?
But, I did want to see what VJ was up against. I use VJ as an artistic outlet – I don’t have to worry about making money at it, so I think I can be fairly objective. (Did a real Journalism piece this week – that was fun).
Youtube was a Very Unpleasant experience.
As I love to pull out from time to time, Yahoo! didn’t even have a “search” box until afer google created one. We can’t imagine life before google, can we? Before the humble “Search Box” that makes it possible to find everything from googling yourself to finding exactly what you want on wikipedia, to finding a recipe for quiche on the Food Network.
Just think. Yahoo had been around for years. Nobody was even making a dime at Yahoo. It never occurred to *anybody* to put a simple search box on the page (it actually occurred to me when I lived in silicon valley, but who was I?) It took google to turn a serch box into billions of searches and dollars.
What will be the “search box” that makes VJ the next “google?” Right now, all we are is pathetic old Yahoo in the stone ages.
Hey, where’s my palm pilot? Oh yeah, we don’t use those anymore.
Jim
Cliff Etzel August 05, 2007
With the Travel Channel at the forefront of the VJ, TJ, whatever-J movement, how can the other entities such as Discovery, Animal Planet, TLC, The History Channel, etc. be persuaded to be forward thinking in the shift towards the VJ paradigm?
The detractors love to espouse the failures of the Citizen journalist movement – and to a certain extent, they have a small case to be made. But then again, an effective business model has yet to be discovered and just because said ventures failed doesn’t necessarily equate to the VJ model as being all smoke and mirrors.
Detractors can/will state that they are professionals at what they do – but it is typically for one skill set only. As the VJ movement gathers steam and becomes more refined, those whom bury their heads in the sand in denial will have fewer and fewer jobs available to them, will find fewer and fewer big paying jobs that use to have padded invoices with extra expenses to give the illusion of value.
I enjoy reading the rantings of the detractors as all I hear is fear of the inevitable.
To use a modified quote in Michael’s post above:
As a VJ, I am someone who has elected to move to the next step in the expanding world of online video as a participant, a contributor as well as a viewer.
I agree with Michael’s last sentence – It IS a great place to be.