Back of my hols and my first post using WP2.5 – very nice so far.
Anyway, I have a lot of stuff to catch up on and things to post about. But to get the juices flowing I wanted to point to a great pick off by Phil Trippenbach about ‘CJ’ coverage of the Olympic torch going through London.
He compares it to the BBC coverage, which someone has also youtubed.
Interesting comparison and Phil ends by considering the fundamental problem that MSM face when it comes to this kind of thing
Everyone in the audience has a camera. And everyone in the audience can broadcast their feed live to the world. If the BBC (or anyone) can figure out an efficient way for people like niesfisch to get newsworthy video onto their own organization’s portal, instead of YouTube, in a timely and yet edited fashion, they’ll have a good thing going . .
2 Responses
Martin Belam
April 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
1Don’t we think that Google already achieved that aim – “get newsworthy video onto their own organization’s portal” – when they just went out and bought YouTube – they just haven’t hooked it all up yet. You type in ‘olympic torch protest’ to Google, and that YouTube video comes up first?
Trippenbach
April 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
2I don’t think that Google has achieved that aim, at all. Sure, they get all the newsworthy video out there – they get ALL the video out there. Ten hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
Even if you’re pumping in accurate search strings, you could get hundreds, if not thousands, of hits back. This is the drinking from a fire hose – there’s so much information, it’s just noise. The video is out there but someone needs to help you find it.
This is where the pros come in.
There are two sides to journalism: reporting and editing. Google is good at the reporting, in that they provide a channel for users to find whatever they’re interested in. But even Page and Brin’s search algorithms can’t decide what’s newsworthy (yet!). The weak spot in the chain here is that someone needs to sort the quality stuff from the dreck. For every 10 hours of footage uploaded to YouTube, most of it will be irellevant, or poor quality, or offensive, or simply not germane to the particular point at hand.
The point remains – how do you sort out which citizen footage is worth looking at and sharing, and which is useless? It’s a problem . . .
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Of interest
Stuff you may be looking for
Categories
Archives
Widget
JOURNALISMDAILY.COM
Disclaimer
Andy would like to point out that the views expressed in this blog are his own and do not reflect the views of the University or Department of Journalism.
RSS Feed
A word from our sponsors
What I'm twittering.
journalism
Mac
Online
Tools
video