Current TV accepting submissions

[dustino]

Current TV, the new channel started by Al Gore is accepting submissions under a broad range of categories for 1 to 5 minute clips. Deadline is July 30 though!

http://www.current.tv/studio/contest/

They're only accepting under the "Best Video" category, but there's something like 20 or more sub-catergories under that. All I know is that this channel is geared towards a decidedly young demographic and the content is presented in small chunks like 2 to 15 minute segments. Read an article in the NY Times yesterday about it and it sounds like the selection process is very democratic and they are as interested in rough and raw material as they are slick polished stuff. This is to maintain their "street cred" according to, um, Al Gore. Yes, "street cred" is a direct quote of Al Gore.

This channel very well may suck when it debuts (or could be great), who knows. But quality aside, I really respect their efforts to democratize the media, at least a hell of a lot more than anything besides cable access. From what I've read, this is an integral part of their philosophy, not just a marketing campaign to start the channel. The one thing that really scares me (quality-wise) is that two of the employees who were interviewed for the article had worked at Channel One - the lame propaganda "station" viewed in high schools.

But, even if it sucks, getting something on national cable station still looks good on the resume and doesn't hurt bragging rights either.

 

[XCheck]

Well, as long as they don't start with 'We practically invented the internet', I wish them (and the content producers) good luck.

Uh - what does it mean: "democratize the media"? Last time I checked, the right-wingers say the media is too liberal, and the left-wingers say it's too conservative...

Help! I am confused!

 

[Terry_Lasater]

What are you talking about?! Al Gore practically invented filmmaking!!

 

[XCheck]

What are you talking about?! Al Gore practically invented filmmaking!!

Yup! At least the 'fiction' side of it!

 

[David Jimerson]

“Democratization” = mediocrity. Always. Always. Always.

I find it fascinating that the people who clamor the loudest for “democratization” are the ones who tend to be the first to decry the result as pedestrian or banal and say that it failed.

 

[kai]

that's odd... i made a post to this hours ago.. and it dissapeared... wonder if i'm being censored?

 

[XCheck]

that's odd... i made a post to this hours ago.. and it dissapeared... wonder if i'm being censored?

The horrors! I wonder if dvxuser.com is getting 'undemocratized'!

Well - we are not supposed to make political posts, right? The problem with 'democratization' is that it confuses equal opportunity with equal results. It starts in schools, and goes all the way up to national, even international politics.

Another problem is that it fosters over-regulation. The more 'democratic' an institution or a process is, the more regulation is required. That eventually results in the institution becoming rigid and unresponsive to its members, thus becoming the very anti-thesis of the democratic process. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

 

[dustino]

Uh - what does it mean: "democratize the media"? Last time I checked, the right-wingers say the media is too liberal, and the left-wingers say it's too conservative...

Help! I am confused!

Here's what I mean by "democratize":

I consider this forum and many other blogs/interactive internet sites to be "democratized". In other words, almost anyone can contribute and/or participate without the impenetrable beauracratic filters that most traditional media put in place. Supposedly, this model of mass participation is a primary goal of this new network. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.

And, to whomover complained that democracy = mediocrity (or something like that - too lazy to get direct quote), I say, no ****. Many of the posts and responses on this forum are pretty damn mediocre - so what. The cost of sorting through mediocrity is far outweighed IMO by the benefits of all-inclusive direct participation. Not to mention, there are wonderful posts with points of view you're unlikely to find in other less-direct media sources.


I'm not saying this model is appropriate for every situation, I'm just saying it has its benefits and it's rarely found on broadcast television (outside of local cable access). Again, I support the goal while being curious/skeptical of what might result.

 

[Barry_S]

Guys, gimme a break. If you want to talk about the actual channel format or submitting films, then fine, but lay off the politics and sniping. Also, you're critiquing Dustino's wording which isn't even how the channel presents itself. I guess it's easy to trash something, when you don't even even know what it is. Imagine, a channel that's going show short films that anyone can submit. Sounds pretty scary, huh? Definitely partisan, too. :angry: Dustino, thanks for posting this. I think it's worth some informed discussion and not just knee-jerk reactions.

 

[XCheck]

I think it's worth some informed discussion and not just knee-jerk reactions.

Hey Barry, with all due respect, I think that's what we've been doing here - given the amount of information available.

The knee-jerk reactions stem from our colllective experience with the media, IMO. Dustino spent close to half of the original post on the subject of democratization of the media, and I see no problem in that. I believe that a corresponding amount of discussion is warranted.

Unfortunately, as most anyone would agree, the term itself is very vague, and, as I tried to demonstrate by my right-wing/left-wing reference, very much depends on who you are talking to (I don't count myself in either group, but that's subjective).

Barry, you know where I come from. I spent most of my life (fortunately, not most of my ADULT life) in a totalitarian regime, with censorship overt, covert, and self-imposed, so I feel somewhat qualified to make a comparison. IMO, with all its failings and obvious opportunities for improvement, North American media business on the whole is still the most democratic in the world (not as in 'Democratic Party', but as in 'Open to most diverse voices'). Does that mean I like a lot of it? Hell no!

I think most people have at least heard of Al Gore, so that gives us some idea about where the new channel might be headed, and any discussion on that should be welcome. Poking fun of his past statements... well, it might be a cheap shot, but it's of his own doing.

As far as a channel where pretty much anyone can submit their short films - yes, it does sound scary. Think of all the clips that have been shown or linked to from here, and tell me if you'd like to watch a channel that takes in anything. If it does, someone has to decide what will eventually be broadcast? What are their criteria for 'best video'? What is the orientation of the decision makers? Until we know more, it is just a speculation.

Dustino's comment

The cost of sorting through mediocrity is far outweighed IMO by the benefits of all-inclusive direct participation.

might be right. But given the vagueness of the term, I am skeptical that it will even lead to all-inclusive direct participation. People have limited tolerance to perceived failure or rejection. That fact alone guarantees that wherever there is a decision-making process in place that is suposed to sort through mediocrity, 'all-inclusive' always becomes 'exclusive' over time. Totally open forums like this one notwithstanding - even here, if I cross the limit on what is perceived good taste or 'rules of the board', I can get banned, and rightly so. Does that qualify as 'all-inclusive direct participation'? I don't know - do you guys?

I still think that nothing beats the Net for openness and diversity, and no one TV channel or station has any chance to even come close. Forgive me if I am skeptical.

Jerry

 

[David Jimerson]

And, to whomover complained that democracy = mediocrity (or something like that - too lazy to get direct quote), I say, no ****.

I didn't complain about it -- I stated it as fact. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Barry_S]

Jerry--you're all over the map. So you're trying to dismiss the value of some informed analysis by trottting out vague generalities? Because the dangerous centrist Al Gore is connected with this? And then a trashing over semantics that the original poster used? I don't even get the whole democratization of media slams because the channel will obviously be screening and selecting the submissions. I'm free to pitch my idea to the Discovery channel, but what's inherently bad about that?

Now DVXfest *is* pretty democratic. We exhibit all qualifying entries and the winners are voted on by all our members. I'd like to think we're more than a monument to mediocrity. So at least read through the website and come up with a few supporting arguments for your preconceived notions.

 

[XCheck]

Jerry--you're all over the map.

Guilty as charged.

So you're trying to dismiss the value of some informed analysis by trottting out vague generalities? Because the dangerous centrist Al Gore is connected with this? And then a trashing over semantics that the original poster used? I don't even get the whole democratization of media slams because the channel will obviously be screening and selecting the submissions.

I don't consider Al Gore dangerous, nor a centrist (again... that will be relative on whom you talk to). I just said that since we know who he is, we can guess what he is up to. No value judgement whatsoever. Was I trashing anyone? I didn't think so... I merely expressed that I didn't understand the 'democratization of media'. I still don't understand what it means, and I am skeptical that anyone - including Current TV - will be able to explain it to me...

I'm free to pitch my idea to the Discovery channel, but what's inherently bad about that?

Exactly! Nothing! And so you are free to pitch your idea to PBS, IFC, FOX, ... which is exactly my point. Here in US and Canada, you can pitch your idea pretty much anywhere, and if your content and its quality matches that of a particular outlet needs, you have a decent shot at having it shown (unlike in the most of the rest or the world). That sounds pretty democratic to me... whether the selection process will be democratic is another matter, and I must admit, I don't know enough about Current TV to see how it's different from other channels.

Now DVXfest *is* pretty democratic. We exhibit all qualifying entries and the winners are voted on by all our members. I'd like to think we're more than a monument to mediocrity.

I didn't mean *just* DVXFest (which is not that all-inclusive, either. It must be shot with DVX, right?), and I didn't mean the site itself. By that comment, I meant all the various content we've seen - be it from the grabs, links to other sites, the whole universe. THAT is all-inclusive, because I can film rabbits mating and post it in the grabs&clips, and no one will stop me. Will it be watchable? Will it be mediocre or gross? You have to admit, most of the stuff on the net IS mediocre. Some of it is great, there is even great stuff that would never get produced through the 'traditional' media outlets, but most of it isn't. Most people only read and see the mediocre once - they end up watching the elite. Please understand that this has nothing to do with passing a judgement - it's a matter of distribution. There are only very few people who grow over 7 feet tall. There are only very few people who can produce non-mediocre content. I believe that was the jist of David's comment, and no democratization of anything will change that.

So at least read through the website and come up with a few supporting arguments for your preconceived notions.

Will do as soon as I get off this firewalled network! I don't know which preconceived notions you mean, but I promise I'll get rid of them as soon as I find them :evil:

Hmmm - maybe we should get together and talk about this over beer. :beer:

 

[dustino]

Hey Barry, with all due respect, I think that's what we've been doing here - given the amount of information available.

Unfortunately, as most anyone would agree, the term itself is very vague, and, as I tried to demonstrate by my right-wing/left-wing reference, very much depends on who you are talking to (I don't count myself in either group, but that's subjective).

Since you still find this term so damn vague ("as most anyone would agree", of course), let me clarify:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democratize

democratize

v 1: become (more) democratic; of nations [syn: democratise] 2. introduce democratic reforms; of nations [syn: democratise]

which leads us to define "democratic":

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democratic

dem·o·crat·ic
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

Or, we can use YOUR OWN WORDS:

North American media business on the whole is still the most democratic in the world (not as in 'Democratic Party', but as in 'Open to most diverse voices').

Well, maybe it's the totality of the statement "democratization of the media" that you find so evasive? Well, I've now defined or clarified "democratization" in two separate posts. "of the media" means "pertaining to the media" - in the context of the post (and stated in the post) - BROADCAST TELEVISION. So, let me spell it out for you, again -

"Democratization of the media" -

the popular (can I say populist? how about 'open to most voices' - your words?) use of the media, broadcast television in this case.

what's so damn confusing about that?

Is this really what you're basing your "trashing" (to use Barry's words) of my post on? My supposed vagueness in saying I think it's cool that a network is "SUPPOSEDLY" opening their network to more 'voices'?

Dude, I'm not trying to pimp Al Gore - I lived in Tennessee the first 29 yrs. of my life (where he was a sentor) and I'm no great fan. I even poked fun at his attempts to be hip and youthful.

So, just for further clarification - "democraticization of the media" has nothing to do with partisan politics - left, right, center, apathetic. I'm talking about a populist approach open to "the most diverse voices" (to, again, put it in your words that you can presumably decifer the meaning of.)

If it does, someone has to decide what will eventually be broadcast? What are their criteria for 'best video'? What is the orientation of the decision makers? Until we know more, it is just a speculation.

I, too, stated my skepticism and went out of my to qualify my remarks with the word "supposed" (goals, aims, intentions).

I still think that nothing beats the Net for openness and diversity, and no one TV channel or station has any chance to even come close. Forgive me if I am skeptical.

Who the hell said this thing was going to outgun the internet for inclusiveness? I simply brought up the 'net as an example of "democratization" because you found it such an opaque concept.

But, hey, thanks for the civics lesson and the layman's dissertation on semantics. (uh oh - "layman's dissertation" - that's a direct contradiction. I'm using those words incorrectly. No room for artful language here without the parsing of words ad naseum.)

Have fun hearing yourself talk from here forward - I'm frankly sick of having relatively benign posts become an echo chamber for your own beloved voice and won't rise to the bait again. Waste of energy.

Just trying to pass on what I thought might be a good opportunity for some and (gasp) said I thought this was a cool stated aim for a network.

 

[XCheck]

Calm down, boy! Take a cold shower if necessary.

You list four different meanings, five with my words. If 'democratic' is so clear, why do the call it "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"?

If you have to resort to authority (of an online source) to explain YOUR understanding of a word, no wonder we can't communicate.

From Current TV own web site:

We are the first national network created by, for and with an 18-34 year-old audience. Our unique programming shows young adults what's going on in their world, in their voice and from their perspective. With a substantial portion of the network's content provided by the audience, we're the first network in history whose programming is supplied and selected in part by the very audience who watches it.

Sounds more demographic than democratic, but I don't have a problem with that. As I said, good luck to everyone involved, and all power to them.

Wait a minute! It does say "we're the first network in history"! Hmm...

Don't hurt yourself, boy, while carrying all that poison around.

Waste of energy.

So don't waste it!

 

[dustino]

Calm down, boy! Take a cold shower if necessary.



Don't hurt yourself, boy, while carrying all that poison around.

Thanks for your concern, grandpa!

 

[uhrgl]

I have a style piece running on Current currently

It's about a sneaker collector.

http://current.tv

It's not always on the frontpage -- they show live updates of what's running so my piece comes up every 2 hours or so. My piece launched with the channel -- I'm not sure when they're going to sub it out with another piece.

If you have DirecTV, check it out on channel 366.

 

[monte]

*dons flame-retardent wet suit*

wait wait ...

*grabs helmet with visor*

ah one more thing

*sprints off into the woods*