Slashdot Mirror
Mark Pesce: Open Source Television
alexburnsdisinfo writes "Mark Pesce has given a riveting talk to Australia's Smart Internet CRC on Open Source Television. Rights for reuse granted under the Creative Commons Attribution License." (The talk is here transcribed as text, and it's good reading.)
The worldwide consolidation of media industries has led to a consequent closure of the public airwaves with respect to matters of public interest. As control of this public resource becomes more centralized, the messages transmitted by global media purveyors become progressively less relevant, less diverse, and less reflective of ground truth.
Greg Palast talks a lot about how misinformation (and lack of information in general) comes from media consolidation in his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. While I don't latch on to everything the man says I do believe that we are living in a time of self-censorship. While the media says that they are fair and balanced we have fantastic shows like Bill O'Reilly and Fox News! We have proof coming from Iraq war coverage that mentions that of course they back the war!
Are we all going to back "Open Source" media? No. Slashdot might but the rest of the world could give a shit. We are talking about people that just don't give a fuck about thinking for themselves. They care only what they hear on TV and read in their local paper. Spin doesn't exist for them. To paraphrase from Runaway Jury: people just want to come home and sit in their lounge chair and let the cable TV wash over them... The rest of us are conspiracy freaks! Fox News didn't mention anything about this so it must not be true.
Continue your attempts to educate and change the world but don't be surprised when it doesn't do a fucking thing other than label you as someone on the fringe.
Last time I checked it was rather difficult to enhance something already recorded... This seems like a gimmick to get onto the open source band wagon, it's just something which won't work outside of software IMO.
Open source is an ideal, it works with people who agree with it (us geeks), but when you try to apply an ideal to something else it won't work (hey lets never have sex so we can make a baby! for example).
I like muppets.
Here is the article. Its almost slashdotted.
My First (and Last) Time With Bill O'Reilly
by David Cole
Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
I t started innocuously enough. On Monday, June 21, a producer from Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor called to ask me to appear as a guest that evening to comment on a front-page story in the New York Times claiming that the Bush Administration had overstated the value of intelligence gained at Guantánamo and the dangers posed by the men detained there. I'm generally not a fan of shout-television, and I had declined several prior invitations to appear on O'Reilly's show, but this time I said yes. Little did I know it would not only be my first time, but also my last.
I sat in the Washington studio as the taping of the show began in New York with a rant from Bill O'Reilly. He claimed that "the Factor" had established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and then played a clip from Thomas Kean, head of the Senate's 9/11 Commission, in which Kean said, "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."
ADVERTISEMENT
I was impressed. O'Reilly, who had announced his show as the "No Spin Zone," was actually playing a balanced soundbite, one that accurately reported the commission's findings both that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11, and that there was some evidence of contacts (if no "collaborative relationship") between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Maybe all those nasty things Al Franken had said about O'Reilly weren't true after all.
But suddenly O'Reilly interrupted, plainly angry, and said, "We can't use that.... We need to redo the whole thing." Three minutes of silence later, the show began again, with O'Reilly re-recording the introduction verbatim. Except this time, when he got to the part about Kean, he played no tape, and simply paraphrased Kean as confirming that "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." The part about no link to 9/11 was left on the cutting-room floor.
Now it was my turn. O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guantánamo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guantánamo."
I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.
That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.
But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
Apparently O'Reilly does not like being called "the pot." He exploded, repeatedly called me an "S.O.B." and assured me that he would cut my accusation from the interview when the show aired. He also said I would "never ever" be on his show again. At this point, I wasn't sure whether to take that as a threat or a promise.
Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired l
I'm beginning to believe that the only way to make people realise the influence television has over them is to by some means turn the crap off for a week or so (highly undemocratic).
Imagine the babies produced
And what better way to share Free stuff than the Internet?
Nullsoft (of WinAmp/trouble-making fame) released NSV/Winamp TV. A good description:
NSV is a new multimedia container format designed for network video streaming. The format is known as NullSoft Video or simply NSV. NSV was developed by Nullsoft corporation, the same company that produced the popular Winamp and Shoutcast streaming audio software.
NSV consists of free software to encode, stream and view video. There are additional third party NSV applications being developed and distributed by stations and users.
Visit here for more info
---------------------
Freedom or Evil: Freevil.net
G. W. Bush says, "You decide!"
That's pretty unfair. You want to try working a 40/50/60 hour week with wife and kids in a hard manual job and then see how much spare time you have to make yourself well informed. Some of us simply don't have time to do this. Somehow the /. mentality seems to be that we should all be experts, all the time on everything that affects us. Unfortunatly, the world doesn't allow that and once we've made time for work, food, sleep, family and friends, there ain't a lot left to determine whose turn it is to tell media porkies. Personally I just don't believe anything of it. I know that's a bad attitude to have, but it's all I have the time or energy to do.
Just my 2 cents...
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
Oh wonderful, so when I'm watching CSI and it crashes, I'll have to go to some obscure Outer Mongolian forum to look up a fix that works for my particular TV/Cable box/Cable provider/Channel combination, take 3 hours to recompile the kernel, and when I'm done I'll have missed my show!
/.'ed (see previous months articles about open source life, medicine, etc)
Seriously, it seems like lately you can tack on the phrase "Open source" to anything and it will get
"Hey, I got a brilliant idea! Open source bridges! People drive across these things all the time, and pay tolls! That's just giving money to the MAN, lets give them a free alternative! Upkeep be damned!"
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
You want to try working a 40/50/60 hour week with wife and kids in a hard manual job and then see how much spare time you have to make yourself well informed. Some of us simply don't have time to do this. Somehow the /. mentality seems to be that we should all be experts, all the time on everything that affects us. Unfortunatly, the world doesn't allow that and once we've made time for work, food, sleep, family and friends, there ain't a lot left to determine whose turn it is to tell media porkies. Personally I just don't believe anything of it. I know that's a bad attitude to have, but it's all I have the time or energy to do.
Then be happy when you are forced to welcome the WTO overlords and their "incentives" for lower wages and more corporate control.
This is stuff that effects EVERYONE. You should be interested in setting aside time to learn. If you are really serious and not trolling I hope to god you heed my words.
If you won't do it for yourself then do it for your family. You seem so interested in making sure you work hard for them you should also be interested in making sure that you won't have to work even harder for less.
Please note that this isn't the same article linked from the frontpage. It was an article linked from garcia (6573) and should not be modded up.
The Nation is not under any Slashdotting. This is a troll!
I agree that the centralized control of airwave spectrum is greatly limiting people's ability to communicate with one another as well as gather information about the world at large.
I wonder if the issue is currently one of human nature of broadcast technology. If we were all running on Ethernet networks we could, as currently happens daily on college campuses across the country, distribute TV shows through very fast file transfers. If the audience for such transfers were large enough, people would produce and distribute original content over it rather than just copying material produced for tv. If you look at a college campus you can see the early form of this already replacing normal tv watching for large numbers of students, and they are some of the high consumption media viewers.
If the network spreads, does this model spread with it, and if it does do we still face the same limitations of centralized self-censorship found in the spectrum clutches at the moment?
I'm glad to see that for Mark "VRML" Pesce, the future is always just around the corner.
--
make install -not war
What's that? Something like public access studios/stations? That's nothing new.
No, I didn't RTFA. It's Slashdotted, so I'm wildly guessing as to just how the hell you can open source a TV show... Which can't really be done, at least not anything like software can. The closest you can get is free equipment and broadcast (already available; cable companies are required by U.S. law to have a public access channel available and usually free equipment and/or studio rentals) and maybe forcing the producers to make their work public domain when it's broadcast (not required, but then again you can't really upgrade or add features to somebody else's TV footage). Sure, the PA equipment is rarely better than an old VHS camcorder, and next to nobody actually watches PA channels, but if somebody wanted to make a TV show they can do it for little more than the time it takes to plan, write, film, and edit it.
"Open source" must be the next big buzzword...
So that's liek...what? Everyone has a hand in the writing of the plot lines for a certain show?
/.
I could see that show going straight to hell very quickly, given the comments and mindset here on
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Continue your attempts to educate and change the world but don't be surprised when it doesn't do a fucking thing other than label you as someone on the fringe.
So true, for example, try getting involved in animal rights. If you voice your opinions on Slashdot, you will quickly be labeled as someone on the fringe. Not only that you will be labeled as self-righteous!
WTF does this have to do with open-sources television? A clear case of moderator abuse to promote an ideal that has nothing to do with the article at hand.
Continue your attempts to educate and change the world but don't be surprised when it doesn't do a fucking thing other than label you as someone on the fringe.
You're never going to get everyone to agree with you. If that was possible, democracy would be unnecessary, because we would all have the same viewpoint and elections would be pointless.
You also state:
We are talking about people that just don't give a fuck about thinking for themselves. They care only what they hear on TV and read in their local paper.
I'm surprised by this vitriol. These people are the minority of voters. There's a reason voter turnout is always so low, and that's because the people that don't care, don't want to put themselves out by going to an elementary school and pulling levers. (Well, maybe if they could use those Diebold machines... nah)
Although I'm very liberal, I am far happier to talk about world events to someone who is a fan of Bill O'Reilly's TV show as opposed to someone who gets their news from the radio on the way to work in the morning. Just because I disagree with their opinions doesn't mean those opinions aren't worthwhile. It is the lack of opinions that we need fear most.
They said that in 2000.
And we wound up with a psychotic idiot warmonger in the white house.
But if I may offer a non-partisan suggestion: if you're trying to persuade someone of something, it's helpful not to begin by telling them how fucking stupid, lazy and uninformed they are. If for no other reason than that it's possible there are people out there who know things that _you_ don't.
Replace 'media' with 'software' and it's the same. Most Free Software users don't 'back' the software -- in the sense that they don't contribute to it -- but they still use it. If collaboratively developed media doesn't suck, then some people will watch it, whether they're geeks or not. They don't have to think for themselves, just as you don't have to be a programmer to click the Mozilla icon on a Gnome desktop.
Happy Bastille Day.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hate to be picky but "Open Source"? Wouldn't a better analogy be GPL? I mean what source is there in Television?
Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
It's about time that the editors start pulling the chain on these moderators. Parent, and grandparent have nothing to do with the article.
You're so brain washed it's amazing you didn't have to get Hillary's village to write your posting for you. You've got so much hate for Fox News, ever try watching Dan Rather (be in France). Good Lord, people finally get a chance to see a little bit of both sides and you're all for going back to getting your news from communists.
If you want to read a REALITY book, forget freaking "Runaway Jury" (John Grisham thinks everyone's and idiot but himself, classic liberal view, "Your too stupid to take care of yourself, let me do it") and try "Brainwashed" by Ben Shapiro. While you're at it, try opening your mind past your pre-programmed views. Use YOUR brain rather than depending on what's been put there by others...
Although I'm very liberal, I am far happier to talk about world events to someone who is a fan of Bill O'Reilly's TV show as opposed to someone who gets their news from the radio on the way to work in the morning. Just because I disagree with their opinions doesn't mean those opinions aren't worthwhile. It is the lack of opinions that we need fear most.
My point was that these people that listen to Bill O'Reilly don't generally have opinions. They are just parroting what Mr. O'Reilly tells them.
Sadly for them, they are usually misinformed and parroting spun information that is whining about the spin from other sources.
I'd rather educate someone and attempt to get them to learn from various sources rather than "debate" with someone who is just a parrot from a single source.
oh shut up.
His post was more intesting that some crap about open source television that's not going to ever happen in the next 20 years.
If anything, we get a situation where one party owns the Congress, and the other owns the White House. Gridlock at its best.
Maybe those losers on the Hill will read the bills they pass, this time around!
doesn't make those who pull the strings go away.
Just a thought.
Completely insightful but wrong. I'm not brainwashed. In fact, I am the furthest thing from brainwashed.
You, OTOH, are brainwashed if you don't have the ability to think for yourself and take the time to learn from multiple sources.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
booya.
"You, OTOH, are brainwashed if you don't have the ability to think for yourself and take the time to learn from multiple sources."
Yes, that's why I find it highly suspect when you attack Fox News specifically. Fox News is as legitimate a source of news as any other. To call it "fantastic" (I take that to be in the "fantastically untrue" sense) is to put forth the idea that other news outlet have no agenda. and that's being brain washed....
Here are several sources of information that point to Fox News' bias.
My point was that ALL media outlets in the US are spinning shit. Fox News is just the greatest offender.
Interupting is the usual ass-hat style of the far extremes these days, they hate it if the other side gets in a whole sentence, let alone makes a point that can be understood or considered...
He's a blow-hard who makes WAY too much money and has precious little talent compared to real interviewers like Howard Stern (who, sadly, made him and Rush Limbaugh possible, but at least Howard innovates!).
me
Most other news sources don't have anchormen shouting and silencing interviewers every time they try to make a point they don't like.
Now when a show has delivered a particularly banal line, I can get in there and fix it.
I can't read the article at the moment (their MySQL has overloaded)...
And how are Bill O'Reilly listeners different from the throngs of anti-Bush fanatics who merely parrot "he's evil--EVIL!" without any foundation in their own head for WHY? Do you enjoy their company merely because you consider them correct, and forgive their empty painted heads?
I can't stand Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, but there are equally kooky airheads on the liberal side. I'd say the same about the other sides of the political polyhedron, but they're usually forced to justify themselves to the mainstream, rather than rely on ideological rants and jingoism.
#19845
..if not decenia.
It was broadcasted by so-called "pirates". That's how they were named by the common media. They named themselves "free media", or "free radio". Not only video, also audio.
So what's the point? It's done by volunteers. The artists have no problem when their art is redistributed. Sometimes open source and/or open standards are used. Like Vorbis and Theora.
Open formats, source and the free media? They were meant to be married.
The anchormen do not do this. The shows were this occurs are commentary shows. A commentator is supposed to have opinions, a news presenter is not.
And how are Bill O'Reilly listeners different from the throngs of anti-Bush fanatics who merely parrot "he's evil--EVIL!" without any foundation in their own head for WHY? Do you enjoy their company merely because you consider them correct, and forgive their empty painted heads?
I wasn't aware that I was parroting that Bush was evil... Maybe you can go back through my Slashdot history and quote me... In fact I believe what I do say is that Bush is too stupid to be of any importance. He's just a puppet figurehead controlled from the evils behind the TV cameras.
I don't enjoy anyone's company but my own. I don't side w/the liberals and I don't side with the conservatives.
Maybe you should learn who you are speaking to before you spout of worthless garbage about who I am. Do some research and then we can talk.
You are saying Al Gore is not insane? Read his book "Earth in the balance" and then read the unabomber's manifesto. There is alot of stuff in these that are interchangeable.
you're saying the unabomber didnt have a point? come on, he was the UNABOMBER!!!
or:
Apathy&Denial's my middle name.
--
Power to the Peaceful
I was comparing your Dittoheads with the unwashed masses at WTO rallies trying to recapture the summer of love. I was not suggesting you are a parrot.
My point was that there are uneducated fanatics on every side.
#19845
My point was that these people that listen to Bill O'Reilly don't generally have opinions. They are just parroting what Mr. O'Reilly tells them.
Thank you Mr. Independant thinker, now I know I've been a parrot all my life and I can turn my attention now to forming my own opinion.
Seriously though, "these people"? Just who are you talking about? I know plenty of well educated people who happen to be Bill O'Reilly fans, just like I know plenty of well educated people who listen to Shawn Hannity's radio show. However these people have no problems disagreeing with the hosts of their respective sources of analysis (not news thank you very much). If you listen to callers on the show, a lot are well spoken dissenters who respectfully disagree with O'Reilly's or Hannity's opinions.
Please before you make large blanket statements, have something to back them up with.
Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
While your attempt to make this some political issue has failed tremendously, let me point something out to you. If the the majority of /. had its way, they would open-source my taking a dump.
Open-source is a lovely concept, but it doesn't apply to everything.
these days you can append 'open source' to pretty much anything and it works.
I'm still waiting for open source sex and an open source girlfriend.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
AFTRS Redefining Television
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Not even close!! If you were watching Peter Jennings when the GOP won congress (a few years ago) and his face turned white and he slurred "The republicans have taken over...". Yeah, that's fair and balanced. No agenda there. Give me break!
Gee, maybe why that's why Fox News has the most viewers?
I assume you're talking about "The O'Reilly Factor" (my personal favorite) and the shouting is because he's (as he's fond of repeating to the pin heads of the world) not doing news he's doing news analysis (and he's passionate as hell, and that's a good thing). Ever read the Op/Ed section of your paper? There ya go. Brit Hume doesn't yell because he's reporting, not analysing. Get it? I knew you could!
The difference is, Al Gore showed he has confidence in the arguments, the Unabomber showed he does not.
If they didn't want the guests to answer their questions, why the heck did they ask them to come in the first place?
You were doing so well until the God part. :)
Cringely's NerdTV a weekly, GPL'd show on tech issues. AFAIK, it was the first open-source TV program ever and was supposed to start "airing" a couple of years ago. They seemed to have all the technical details ironed out and be about to start when NerdTV completely dissapeared from the face of the Earth.
Anyone with inside information out there?
I know where you're coming from. I find that RSS helps a lot - I have a bunch of news sources that I believe to be fairly unbiased (like Reuters) and others which I know to be biased (like Indymedia and the UK Liberal Democrats) stuck in my RSS reader, and scroll through the headlines when I take a break from coding. I probably only read a small number of the articles in detail, but I get enough of an impression of what's going on from the headlines to know when someone's bullshitting me. Give it a go, it seems to be a fairly low-maintenance way of keeping yourself at least basically informed.
I also try to catch at least one half-hour news show in the evening on TV, while I'm making the dinner or something. I appreciate that this may not be possible for you, and I'm lucky that my girlfriend is also interested in current affairs so it's something we can do together. Of course, the problem then is finding an unbiased news source, but between Channel Four news and the BBC I think I'm doing OK.
Cut out the family and friends part, and you'll have plenty of time to sit in front of your computer typing annoying replies to Slashdot posts in which you are only marginally interested.
On a slightly more serious note, there is a middle ground between being an expert on a subject, and being totally ignorant about a subject.
Everyone should know something about everything, and everything about something.
Unfortunately, most people think they know nearly everything about nearly everything, when actually they know very little about almost nothing.
Or something like that.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Your too stupid
"You're".
Many guests will simply spew the same, tired, scripted response that their ideology has burned into their soul. That's SPIN, not truth. When that happens O'Reilly (analysis, not news) goes after them and rightly so. If you've ever heard Lanny Davis speak he's a perfect example. He will never admit any wrong doing on the part of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lowenski case despite the fact the Clinton himself admits it and was found guilty of perjury and impeached. Lanny will drone on and on about how it's all about sex or right wing conspiracy or that we all just hate Bill Clinton, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa... That's spin and O'Reilly doesn't allow it and that's why people watch him. I don't always agree with him and sometimes he does seem rude but you've got to love his passion. Most commentators look like they could fall asleep during their interviews because the last thing they're going to do is make their guest uncomfortable. That just doesn't cut it for me. Get to the real questions and let the chips fall. If they get mad, oh well.
So from now on instead of calling certain girls and guys sluts, one should call them open source hookers?
:-)
It's a working girl that doesn't get paid