Would any "serious" network even consider buying the thing? I doubt it. The combination of knowledge, analysis, snark, and a Left POV isn't Prime Time. In their view, in my view. The pros-from-Dover 'round here would know better.
Given the lack of programming - as I understand it - would one of the secondary (whatever that means) networks or TV channels pick it up? Again, The pros-from-Dover 'round here would know better than I but I think one might. They should. The potential audience is there.
Going 'live' over the internet would mean the in-house acquisition of the necessary bandwidth infrastructure but would instantly open the program to a global audience that could watch a show (and the advertising?) whenever they wished. And please note 'a' show is correct. By keeping the shows on-viewer-demand every show is a potential sell -- as it were.
Then there is the FaceBook, YouTube, all the different virtual reality niche markets, tee-shirts, coffee/tea mugs, toys, records, DVDs, CD, CCCP, and the People's Front for the Liberation of Judea markets.
We'll make a killing, I tell you. A killing!
Sven - BABY! - let's do the meeting thing and ....
slap, slap, slap
(thank you. I feel better, now.)
All kidding aside, it is true there are journalists doing what they can, as best they can, when they can. But I suggest as long as we depend on the corporate media companies to spread our message we lose. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
The most important factor though is that it will NOT be anything like news as it is now. As the music industry is undergoing decentralization, it has shown that the music that becomes available is different in kind from what went before. One could argue that this new music has always been made, but never made available. But I would argue McCluhan style, that the medium is the message. New technologies for making and distributing creativity, mean a change in the type of artefacts produced.
Same with news. It is worthwhile to speculate IMO what news might look like without the middlemen, because that in turn might reveal what is wrong with the news creation business now. You can't be me, I'm taken
I've been thinking about ET News since 2006 - I mentioned it at the first Paris meet - but the point, mainly, is not the form or even the content, but the narrative. And especially the audience reach.
There is, for better or worse, a disconnect between Media and Influential Media. Giving everyone a camcorder creates plenty of media. But it doesn't necessarily map to influence, or even to significance.
I don't think any of us can really say what influence or significance might look like in the future. To me, everything is going up in the air and it will be hard to predict what will happen.
That is not to say it is not worth discussing. I think we have a chance to 'change the game'. And every conversation gets us a little closer. You can't be me, I'm taken
