November 18, 2004

Independant World Television I was at this conference and one of the speakers was Paul Jay, of CBC's Counter Spin. He very passionately spoke about this: the idea of a world independant media, not owned by a corporation and completely dependant on donations. Apparently it should get off the ground by 2006. Good idea? Complete flop? Will you get behind it?
posted by stray 19 years ago
  • Great, wonderful idea. Execution will fail because corporations own the satellites and distribution channels, which said independent station would need to get to viewers. And you know how that will go.
  • It's been tried, after a fashion, but it turned out that people don't want it.
  • See, my thought has been that they need to make the news news, as tried in the experiment, but bring the entertainment in with the newscasting. Like naked news, but something you could put on broadcast tv. Say, make the lives of the newscasters something like a soap opera, but well written, with lots of conflict, and have the news be properly done, traditional journalism.
  • Also, I wonder how much money, in this day and age, it takes to make a cable television channel. Something that's bare-bones in production costs, but does what they can with that. For example, how much does CSPAN or CSPAN/2 really cost to make on a day-to-day basis? If you get some old amigas with Video Toasters in them, probably costing....quick ebay check...about 400 dollars each, you could mix the live video. Or you could do everything with a couple of macs and some Final Cut express software, and your biggest expense is likely to be getting the video to the cable stations. Obviously you'll need some cameras, a couple of people, and some artists, and if you're not worried in the beginning about having to repeat content, it's probably not that expensive. Heck, you can launch your own satellites these days for about 30k, though they probably wouldn't last that long if you were trying to broadcast video with it. Of course, if anyone knows the hidden costs of running a cable news channel, I am a bit curious.
  • Say, make the lives of the newscasters something like a soap opera, but well written, with lots of conflict, and have the news be properly done, traditional journalism. Law and Order is shown twice a day on TNT.
  • It's been tried, after a fashion, but it turned out that people don't want it. A straight newsreader format is standard in England, with only one having anchors off the top of my head, so it might get an audience. The BBC world service is supposed to be popular in a lot of countries as a source of news that's a bit more independant.
  • I was thinking a higher news-to-drama ratio, and with real people's names, and not just things involving trials, but to a point, yes.
  • It's a nice idea but perhaps they shouldn't try to conquer the world right outta the gate. Why not try for the web, first, and then branch from there? Raising One Hundred Million dollars for ONE YEAR OF BROADCASTING seens incredibly stupid from a business standpoint. The goal should be to build a lasting infrastructure for this, which the web can for a much cheaper price.
  • I like the idea of an independent news source funded by donations, but if I'm giving any of my money to them, I want assurances that the reporting is going to reflect my points of view. Otherwise, what's the point of giving to them?
  • I agree, Brandon. Aiming too high and it's likley to fall flat on its face. A strong web presence would need much less capital, allow them to get into a groove. I guess this points out the lethal weakness with these well-intentioned folks who don't have business experience. Somehow they think that if it's not an evil corporation, the rules of making something a going concern don't apply to them. Why should someone (customer) hand over $100 (purchase price) for a sight unseen tv show (product)?
  • In 2005, major events will be held around the world on the same day. Cities will include Sydney , New York , Los Angeles , Toronto , Dublin , London , New Delhi , and Johannesburg . Major concerts featuring famous bands known for their political awareness, well known actors and political personalities will be involved. I dunno, I think they're probably aiming too high, but might be able to get a fair number of people on board if they play the marketing angle right--it's got a bit of "rebel" cool cache. At the same time from listening to the guy speak, I think there's a good chance that, should they get on the air, it'll turn into a bash conservatism type thing just for those who enjoy it. BUT, it seems very well intentioned-- I'm hoping.
  • I love the idea. I hope they go with the 100% non-corporate sponsorship model a la Pacifica Radio. Because PBS and NPR haver turned to shit.
  • I don't think NPR is that bad. But I'm comparing it to ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX "news."