The state of video aggregation on the web

Published Date 10/18/11 4:07 PM

There is an issue of centralization around a single portal for different types of content on the web, and the withering of diversity of outcomes that this entails. There are a few successful implementations of p2p web structures such as blogging and RSS but they are exceptions, we have total domination of video (youtube) social networking (facebook) and micro blogging (twitter). Still audio, music, and images are less locked down, and text news is still a open platform. 

One way of avoiding this locking and control is the use of aggregation, the are examples of video aggregators such as http://vodpod.com and http://www.mirocommunity.org which we both use. And the visionontv project it self is an aggregating project (with a strong focus on production to balances/editorialise the output).

BUT this alternative to centralised solutions is faltering, if we look at the wikipedia page of video aggregators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_aggregator we see that  more than half have closed down or shifted their focus. This illustrates how the internet is closing down to a few corporate hosted/controlled sources for media, the is a slow reaction to this coming from such events as the recent http://live.rebelliousmediaconference.org event and the upcoming http://www.contactcon.com in New York. but there is currently no reaction strong enough to counter this centralizing logic/market monopoly.

If you would like to see a open internet it is time to act.

Using a good mobile phone with an external mic to shoot live video reports

Published Date 10/16/11 5:31 PM

Here are two short video pieces I did at the recent Occupylsx. Feel they work quite well, two crew, one on camera, one on mic and interview, then basic camera moves and VO/interview.

Shot and uploaded in an hour or so, I did a few more interviews but they were problematic for content and camerawork, it was a on the job training with the person I was working with.

Power politics In activist organizing prioritizes self-interest over outcomes

Published Date 10/1/11 11:50 AM

There is a lot of self-destructive behaviour in left/progressive organising, an old example the Monty Python sketch

I am looking at concepts that describe this. Power politics is a state of international relations in which sovereigns protect their own interests by threatening one another with military, economic, or political aggression.

Power politics is essentially a way of understanding the world of international relations: nations compete for the world’s resources, and it is to a nation’s advantage to be manifestly able to harm others. It prioritizes national self-interest over the interest of other nations or the international community.

Techniques of power politics include, but are not limited to, conspicuous nuclear development, pre-emptive strike, blackmail, the massing of military units on a border, the imposition of tariffs or economic sanctions, bait and bleed and bloodletting, hard and soft balancing, buck passing, covert operations, shock and awe and asymmetric warfare.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_politics

Can people think of examples of how this manifests in smaller world of activist organising?

Trust and control and the role of gatekeepers in blocking

Published Date 9/30/11 10:43 AM

Everyone understands the role of “gatekeepers” in traditional media. I want to look at how there are very similar issues with radical and progressive media. Most blocking and authoritarianism in activist organising is not conscious, rather its roots lie in psychological traits rather than ideological thinking. Everyone might be a professed horizontalist, but some are clearly not acting in the accordance with the way they think/speak.

An example of this is when the are two clear points of view, both valid and valuable, in a group. Typically, the horizontalist view is blocked procedurally until there is no time left in the process. Then the more vertical view is pushed through at the last moment to “save the process”. The outcome is very bad feeling between the groups/indiviuals and the more (dysfunctional) authoritarian view is implemented. This is problematic as it gives a clear signal to everyone involved that progressive ways of working cannot work, which feedbacks to the next process and left/progressive project stagnates. 

In general, building radical media needs to have no gatekeepers to the overall structure (just like that hugely successful progressive, horizontalist project, the internet). We need ideas of how we can work our way out of this progressive cul-de-sac and we need them soon. It seems to me that progressive organising is based on trust, and authoritarian organising is based on a need for control (and the distrust that this breeds). So does the answer lie in leaving enough time for trust-building in progressive organising as a core part of the process?