Yesterday I linked over to Josh Marshall's video of Part I of the Personal Democracy Forum. Today I want to send you to Part II.
In this installment Josh interviews two more people, one is a journalism professor who is working on how decentralized citizen journalism will work, and the second is a law professor who steps back a bit from the details and describes how citizen journalism and open source software are opening society up, while big businesses since 1990 have been working hard to lock down as much information as possible so that it is not available to most people (Think Disney and the extension of the life of copyrights.)
I strongly recommend that you sit through the video. And if it starts sort of hanging up then starting again, the data is not downloading as fast as it is being displayed. The solution is to start the video, pause it, and let it download a lot before restarting it.
Watching this video is a little like seeing the future. The first interview is a nuts-and-bolts how to do it for citizen journalism using the internet, and the second interview provides a quick glimpse of how the slow innovation is lagging behind tne new technologies and the people using them. So go watch it.
Showing posts with label PoliticsTV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PoliticsTV. Show all posts
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Josh Marshall reports on the Personal Democracy Forum 07
The --- What? Huh?
That was my first reaction. Probably yours, too. So get past it and go watch the video at TPM. Here's why.
It is about the use of technology, the Internet and its many and expanding permutations, in politics. Josh's video itself is an example. It is a tool of journalism, distributed by Internet rather than TV. It opens journalism to everyone.
The video itself is overall interesting. The first significant part was an interview with Andrew Raseij starting at about 1 minute 40 seconds. Andrew's challenge to the candidates is to ask "Who is America's first tech President? What are the candidate's positions on such issues as Net Neutrality? Providing broadband access to every American?"
The second significant part is the interview with Jeff Jarvis. Mr. Jarvis is watching the way the world changes. He likes to watch the election through U-Tube. Mr. Jarvis' issue is how the candidates use the Internet to get elected to office, and how voters and potential voters can use U-tube to excerpt candidate statements on a particular issue and aggregate them over time. This would display inconsistencies, which the next interviewer should ask about - then post on U-Tube.
The video is worth watching - maybe even the first minute and forty seconds if you are happy with a distant shot of a smiling Tom Friedman and pictures of New York City from a cab. I have to ask -- why did Josh publish his cab ride to the conference? I got nothing from that. I am also sufficiently non-social so that I really don't care who he was schmoozing with. The rest was really worthwhile, though, so watch it.
Josh also promises more. For someone reading this, Josh is exploring where the medium we are using right now is going in the context of its impact on politics.
For more on this, see does the Democratic Party have an advantage on-line?. It is about the nexus of the Internet, sociology (or social psychology) and politics. The Internet is the rapidly changing element in that triad, and the other two elements are being dragged along and adapting to the changes.
That was my first reaction. Probably yours, too. So get past it and go watch the video at TPM. Here's why.
It is about the use of technology, the Internet and its many and expanding permutations, in politics. Josh's video itself is an example. It is a tool of journalism, distributed by Internet rather than TV. It opens journalism to everyone.
The video itself is overall interesting. The first significant part was an interview with Andrew Raseij starting at about 1 minute 40 seconds. Andrew's challenge to the candidates is to ask "Who is America's first tech President? What are the candidate's positions on such issues as Net Neutrality? Providing broadband access to every American?"
The second significant part is the interview with Jeff Jarvis. Mr. Jarvis is watching the way the world changes. He likes to watch the election through U-Tube. Mr. Jarvis' issue is how the candidates use the Internet to get elected to office, and how voters and potential voters can use U-tube to excerpt candidate statements on a particular issue and aggregate them over time. This would display inconsistencies, which the next interviewer should ask about - then post on U-Tube.
The video is worth watching - maybe even the first minute and forty seconds if you are happy with a distant shot of a smiling Tom Friedman and pictures of New York City from a cab. I have to ask -- why did Josh publish his cab ride to the conference? I got nothing from that. I am also sufficiently non-social so that I really don't care who he was schmoozing with. The rest was really worthwhile, though, so watch it.
Josh also promises more. For someone reading this, Josh is exploring where the medium we are using right now is going in the context of its impact on politics.
For more on this, see does the Democratic Party have an advantage on-line?. It is about the nexus of the Internet, sociology (or social psychology) and politics. The Internet is the rapidly changing element in that triad, and the other two elements are being dragged along and adapting to the changes.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Politics TV refuses to cover FOX Democratic debate
The National Democratic Party has scheduled a debate for Democratic candidates for the nomination for President, to be held in Nevada (home of Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader) and to be controlled and broadcast by FOX "News" (the propaganda arm of the radical right-wing of the Republican Party.)
FOX ceased long ago to be a news organization, and is as much an enemy of America as Dick Cheney, his NeoCons, and al Qaeda. Why the Democratic Party would give them the contract to operate and broadcast a pre-primary debate I find it hard to imagine.
Politics TV, the excellent webcasting organization who has brought us the Jane, Marcy & Others Show from the Libby Trial has refused to contract with FOX to cover that debate. Here is the explanation that Politics TV presented.
Politics TV has got it right. What is wrong with Harry Reid?
FOX ceased long ago to be a news organization, and is as much an enemy of America as Dick Cheney, his NeoCons, and al Qaeda. Why the Democratic Party would give them the contract to operate and broadcast a pre-primary debate I find it hard to imagine.
Politics TV, the excellent webcasting organization who has brought us the Jane, Marcy & Others Show from the Libby Trial has refused to contract with FOX to cover that debate. Here is the explanation that Politics TV presented.
Politics TV has got it right. What is wrong with Harry Reid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)