December 22, 2006 2 Comments

Jarvis on TV Infrastructure

This is a great post by Jeff Jarvis about all the infrastructure still used by traditional TV to deliver an interview versus what we use to get videoblogging done. Watch the video, but check out the article for context, too.


Click To Play

The difference between big TV and small. A demonstration of what I blogged about earlier here. This one involves shoots for big TV — ABC 20/20 and PBS Frontline — and smaller TV — CNBC.com — and the smallest TV, my own.

Related posts:

  1. Odd 5K

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Genesis Framework

Genesis Theme Framework

The Genesis Framework empowers you to quickly and easily build incredible websites with WordPress. Whether you're a novice or advanced developer, Genesis provides you with the secure and search-engine-optimized foundation that takes WordPress to places you never thought it could go.

With automatic theme updates and world-class support included, Genesis is the smart choice for your WordPress website or blog.

Become a StudioPress Affiliate

  • http://www.vergenewmedia.com Jim Long

    Chris,

    As you know, I straddle both worlds – new media and old -(or “dirty media” as ZeFrank calls it he he). Implicit – never openly said – in a lot of the discussion, is that the problem with tradional TV, is the number of people invloved in SOME traditional TV production. Dedication to craft and expertise brought to bear by, devoted, hard working professionals is somehow equated to waste. So it’s easy to look at all the gear and staff and say “see! look at all of this bloat. We can do this with a mini-dv and a laptop.” Well, not true in my estimation. One person with one camera simply can not accomplish what a crew with 20 years of experience can.

    In fact – me with my camera on my shoulder doing interviews and gathering facts by myself-holding a RE-50 in my other hand (which i’ve done in my capacity with NBC News) – I can’t accompish what a team of production people can.

    A lot of the posts point out how much gear and staff it takes to do what I do in my day job. Jeff Jarvis actually asked in a different post: “Do they really need all that to shoot three minutes of obvious primetime drama? Of course, they don’t.”

    That simply isn’t a quantifiable statement. It’s like those true/false test questions. Always be wary of the absolutes. Is social media better because it generally requires less infrastructure? Of course not! (but watch, look for more infrastructure in new media as more people get involved and look to stand out) New media shines becuase I or you or anyone else can ask questions, comment and get people like Jarvis to respond directly to us. We actually have a stake in what’s going on. And THAT is immesureably freakin’ awesome!

    The failure of traditional TV lies in its inability connect with people on a deeply personal, transactional level. That does not mean that what traditional TV does is without merit. It is simply different animal. Frankly, there is room for some production value, in some internet TV offerings, even if it means a little editing.
    But to suggest that might be impolitic, especially from an old-media dinosaur ;-)

    Having said all of that, folks like you, Jarvis, Congdon, Baron et al, always inspire me to think about what media is and should be. Good on ya!

    I just think we should always leave room for a lot of different ideas.

    Jim

  • http://www.vergenewmedia.com Jim Long

    Chris,

    As you know, I straddle both worlds – new media and old -(or “dirty media” as ZeFrank calls it he he). Implicit – never openly said – in a lot of the discussion, is that the problem with tradional TV, is the number of people invloved in SOME traditional TV production. Dedication to craft and expertise brought to bear by, devoted, hard working professionals is somehow equated to waste. So it’s easy to look at all the gear and staff and say “see! look at all of this bloat. We can do this with a mini-dv and a laptop.” Well, not true in my estimation. One person with one camera simply can not accomplish what a crew with 20 years of experience can.

    In fact – me with my camera on my shoulder doing interviews and gathering facts by myself-holding a RE-50 in my other hand (which i’ve done in my capacity with NBC News) – I can’t accompish what a team of production people can.

    A lot of the posts point out how much gear and staff it takes to do what I do in my day job. Jeff Jarvis actually asked in a different post: “Do they really need all that to shoot three minutes of obvious primetime drama? Of course, they don’t.”

    That simply isn’t a quantifiable statement. It’s like those true/false test questions. Always be wary of the absolutes. Is social media better because it generally requires less infrastructure? Of course not! (but watch, look for more infrastructure in new media as more people get involved and look to stand out) New media shines becuase I or you or anyone else can ask questions, comment and get people like Jarvis to respond directly to us. We actually have a stake in what’s going on. And THAT is immesureably freakin’ awesome!

    The failure of traditional TV lies in its inability connect with people on a deeply personal, transactional level. That does not mean that what traditional TV does is without merit. It is simply different animal. Frankly, there is room for some production value, in some internet TV offerings, even if it means a little editing.
    But to suggest that might be impolitic, especially from an old-media dinosaur ;-)

    Having said all of that, folks like you, Jarvis, Congdon, Baron et al, always inspire me to think about what media is and should be. Good on ya!

    I just think we should always leave room for a lot of different ideas.

    Jim