Television

Is the arrival of 3D TV premature?

This week, Samsung is making 3D televisions available for purchase in Canada. They will quickly be followed by other major manufacturers with their own 3D displays. Does this mark a new shift in how we experience entertainment, or just a neat concept that lacks the content to make it tangible?

Our culture seems obsessed with what's new, and what's innovative. There's always a need to push forward, and the TV/Entertainment industry still remains a powerful force when it comes to pushing new technology into the marketplace and convincing us that we need it.

When done right, 3D TV is phenomenal, as anyone who saw Avatar can tell you. Yet it's not always done right, and Alice in Wonderland is a great example of this.

Is the imperative of first pushing HD and now pushing 3D partly a response to the internet and the larger phenomena of sharing content? If you keep innovating, if you keep evolving, it makes it harder for the barbarian hordes on the internet to undermine your business model. Which is not to say they won't catch up, rather this might be the new way of doing business. Make money by getting people to keep buying into new technologies and platforms.

For example while the initial Samsung models start at $2,500 for the TV, the glasses start at $250 each, and those are just entry level. When I first heard of 3D TV I imagined them being a hit at sports bars, but not if you have to give drunk patrons goggles that cost a few hundred bucks each.

Resisting Internet Orthodoxy

I've been thinking a lot about what makes the work I do and the ideas I have different from my contemporaries. Rather facetiously, I talk about the internet as a new religion embraced by the masses in search of salvation. By resisting internet orthodoxy, I deliberately try to see our society and its relationship with technology in a unique manner.

This begins with refusing to use the same jargon and phrases as others, and playing with words to find more accessible and meaningful ways of explaining trends and phenomena. The internet is full of technical concepts that have exclusive and rigid meanings.

Yet the power and resilience of the internet is derived from its open nature, so it only makes sense that we embrace freedom when we talk and think about related ideas and concepts. I do this by generally distrusting technical authorities, including early adopters, technology executives, and I.T. admins. I respect their knowledge, but always question whether their perspective has the potential to be transfered to people who aren't in a position of technical authority (the vast majority of us).

When it comes to the world of social media, which is both technical and non-technical, elitist and also accessible, I find myself consistently frustrated by the level of "group think." In contrast to other technical areas, social media accommodates anyone and everyone, so jargon isn't an acceptable vocabulary to control the discussion and analysis.

What you commonly find is a spoken and unspoken orthodoxy, rules that dictates how tools should be used and people should act. The problem is that this stifles innovation and doesn't allow for the kind of true experimentation we should be seeing in this sector.

Public relations, marketing and advertising people lament the rash of social media experts who project their own industry orthodoxy onto an emergent discipline. Few understand the dynamic involved when in a long chain of diverse individuals and organizations who have a range of expertise culturally acclimatize their own networks and friends.

The seeds of this kind of internet orthodoxy were sown in Ursula Franklin's definition of technology as being "how we do things around here". The variable comes in how we define where we are, with the internet collapsing space into time and everyone being "here" at some point in time.

Censorship in Canada's Copyright Debate?

Last week I received a take down notice from YouTube regarding a video I posted three years ago from an appearance on RoBTV which has since been rebranded as BNN.

Turns out I was not the only one. Jason Crocker from the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights also had some RoBTV/BNN videos pulled from YouTube.

Jason also did some digging to find that there were dozens of videos from BNN on YouTube and it was just the ones around the copyright issue that had been forcibly removed.

The easy conclusion to reach based on this limited data is that BNN is getting pressure to remove these particular videos. Perhaps in response to attempts to book guests who disagree with the arguments made in the videos? Those guests perhaps decline to appear on the channel out of a perception of bias against them due to the examples uploaded to YouTube?

The story has been picked up by ZeroPaid.com in the states, and its possible there were other people who's clips have been removed and we just haven't heard from them (yet).

Unfortunately this type of censorship does tend to be effective in part because it employs the very copyright laws we seek to reform. In this instance my appearance on a cable news channel was not something I was allowed to share because they claim ownership. While fun, I don't presently have the time to fight it, so instead I'll just cease doing business with BNN, and encourage others to do the same.

The video had been modestly popular, featuring a panel with myself and a CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) representative. Now that discussion is gone, and you can bet the people at CRIA would never have the courage to debate me in public again.

Update: Rose Noonan from BNN promptly got in touch with me to clarify that in fact they are removing *all* BNN videos from YouTube. So this is not an example of censorship in Canada's copyright debate, and that they are not discriminating against a particular topic, but rather are removing the items regardless of the topic.

While I still disagree with their actions I acknowledge that they are not targeting copyright in particular nor do they wish to curtail the debate on this subject.

Al Jazeera should be available in Canada

News is something I've always been interested in. Often this interest is more in the news business than it is in the news they are delivering. The internet has now matured to the point where I can get news from anywhere in the world, and I often seek multiple sources for coverage of a particular event.

However I do still tune into televised news, and most Canadians still get the majority of their news from their TV. This is why I think Al Jazeera should be available on Canadian cable television.

A number of CBC colleagues are now working for Al Jazeera's english language service, and via them I've been able to learn a lot about the programming produced for this network. For the most part it's excellent, and provides a crisp contrast to the rest of cable TV news.

You can view Al Jazeera online via Live Station, and once you do, I encourage you to contact the CRTC and participate in their current consulation regarding the network.

The City State: Mez and STV in BC

This is a beta test of a new Internet show I've been developing. I've learned a lot since shooting and editing this first bit. The lighting and sound was poor, and the second interview I shot improved on this dramatically. However I wanted to release this as a beta test and get it out there in hopes of getting feedback.

I also wanted to get it out in time to help promote the STV campaign in BC. If you're in BC, or have friends/family there, please get them to help reform our electoral system.

Also a big special thanks to Brownman Ali for allowing me to use the spectacular song "Yesteryear" which was composed and performed by the Brownman Electryc Trio.

A Canadian Ministry of the Internet?

Video from a recent appearance of mine on CBC News Morning to discuss the potential regulation of the Internet by the CRTC. Also features behind the scenes footage!

When TV meets the Internet

When I think of the relationship between television and the internet my mind races to metaphors of historical proportions. The issue is one of orthodoxy and dissent, of opportunity and denial.

If you were alive during the Reformation would you only listen to or obey the Pope? If you were in St Petersburg during the first world war would you continue to believe in the infallibility of the Tsar? If you were a student in Paris in 1968 would you stick to your studies?

The world of technology is one in which great opportunities emerge for those who are willing to be critical and capable of understanding what is possible rather than just what is promoted. A clear example of this comes from the effort to unite our love affair with television with the empowerment that comes with online interactivity.

The start of each calendar year is marked in the technology world by the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and the unveilling of all sorts of new technology. This year was no exception, and one of the items that caught my critical eye was the latest generation of HD television sets which feature internet capabilities.

Electoral TV Debates in Canada are Bullshit

Today the consortium (monopoly) that controls the televised leaders debates for the Canadian federal election decided that they would exclude the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May. In doing so they have discredited their own debates, and will alienate a great many of Canadians who will rightly see a political class as being terrified of environmental issues.

I am not a member of the Green Party, and I will not be voting for them this election. However I am an environmentalist, and I do think it is a crucial issue in this election. I am also smart enough to recognize that the Green Party is *not* a one issue party, and that they have just as many policy positions, and just as many candidates as any other party in the country. It is clear to me that the reason they are being excluded is not because they do not qualify, but rather because the fear, from an optics perspective, is that by including them, the environment will become a more dominant issue. With Green leader Elizabeth May in the debates at least two leaders (May and Dion) if not four (May, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe) will raise the environment as an example of the Tories being totally asleep at the wheel.

Online Socializing and the Space of Flows

I really enjoy appearing on the TV Ontario show The Agenda, in part because the conversation led by host Steve Paikin is always top notch, taking the guests and audience into new territory. Steve has this way of simultaneously understanding where the conversation is going while also keeping it grounded in language and concepts that are as accessible as possible. This type of intellectual populism is precisely what I think enables engaging television.

Last night's panel was on the subject of "Socializing Online", it was produced by celebrity TVO producer Mike Miner, and my fellow guests were Nancy Baym from the AoIR, Maggie Fox of the Social Media Group, and Will Pate, community evangelist and host of commandN. While there wasn't as much debate or disagreement compared to past shows, we were able to really build off of each other's comments and insights to reach a high level of discourse.

Review of CBC Fortune Hunters

Today I received a review copy of the upcoming episode of Dianne Buckner's Fortune Hunters that airs this weekend on CBC Newsworld. I'm always happy and willing to receive movies, TV shows, books, and other media, and I promise to be both honest and relatively prompt with my review.

While I was not able to watch the first and debut episode of Fortune Hunters that aired last Saturday, I enjoyed watching the second quite a bit. Of course I do have some criticism to share, which I will detail below, however the overall production and content of the show was great, creating an entertaining and informative half hour.

The stated mission of the show is to focus on the hottest trends, with a focus on how to capitalize and make money off of them, hence the title, Fortune Hunters. Each episode has a theme, and this second installment is about the "web".

Syndicate content