CNN Now Offers Free Online Video

Drinian writes "It seems that CNN is now offering its video FREE to the public. Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

Comments

Free as in beer?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video.

Well, first of all, it's nice to see that Fox 'News' is actually good for something...

Although 'free' might be an exaggeration, as you do have to pay for the video by sitting through an obligatory advertisment before you get to the good stuff...but that's OK...the part of my brain that processes commercials is just a big knot of scar tissue anymore. Anyway, you're on your computer, so you can use that time to do constructive things, like find and mark a few mines, or put the red seven on the black eight.

^_^

Re:Free as in beer?

[wo1verin3]

I would think that competition from MSNBC would have been a factor as well. While CNN video used to be free, they went pay for video while MSNBC and others did not...

CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[daveschroeder]

...to win viewers/readers from FOX News. There's a Newsweek piece about it this week.

[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff, and creating a new international news show at noon. These are only the first steps in a broad overhaul plan aimed at getting the pioneering and once dominant cable news network out of a seemingly perennial second-place finish, far behind Fox News.

And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm

which finds, in part

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist.

and

Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.

Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). [...] the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. [...] Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. [...] The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.

Please note:

These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. (emphasis mine)

It makes me sad when people can't tell the difference between NEWS and OP-ED. Do people also have that same problem with the editorial page of the New York Times? Or just, say, Sean Hannity on FOX News? Is it acceptable to judge the news gathering and reporting capability of the Times by exclusively evaluating the content of its opinion page?

Further, one of the prime measures this report uses is the scoring for members of Congress by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-described "nation's oldest liberal lobbying group".

Now, some might say that comparing news to members of Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, isn't an effective measure (especially if you believe there is virtually no real difference between today's politicians). But at least take time to consider the report.

Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual N

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[Adult film producer]

Americans have such a twisted & skewed idea of what being 'liberal' means, or even 'leftist.' Your average democrat in congress supports big business, tax breaks for them as well (look at the voting record.) Big military (check the voting record again.) And will do whatever they can to stop any form socialized healthcare (think back to hillary's little action committee & the all the democrats that lambasted her for even suggesting health care be nationalized.)... That's your average american democrat.. and that's what you call a 'liberal' .. To me, it's all Very right, Right.. slightly right and then Kucinich.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[aftk2]

One might assume that, if your network's name contains the word "News," you'd hold all your broadcasts accountable to the same level of accuracy and minimization of bias.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[Koiu Lpoi]

So, by that token, with Fox News being centrist according to the studies, they really are rather rightist?

Note you need to take a world political view, not just American one for this to work.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[geoffrobinson]

This isn't news to those who have actually watched the darn channel. Gretta Van whatever, Geraldo, Juan Williams, Gen. Wesley Clark appear on Fox News all the time. It's just that they are to the right of most liberal media outlets. And some far-out leftists view liberal media outlets conservative because they aren't socialists.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[harks]

So the media has a liberal bias because it is more liberal than the average member of Congress. Does anyone else see the problem with this basis for comparison?

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[Uruk]

Some people say that the "conservative" party members in European politics would have no chance in American politics, because they would be considered lunatic leftists with a fringe agenda that no American would dare back. In other words, the conservative European politicians are to the left of the American democrats.

That's just the difference between third-way european quasi-socialism and American quasi-capitalism. One of the underlying differences in cultural assumption is that Americans tend to think of the government as primarily something that's there to preserve their personal freedom and economic freedom, while Europeans might feel that the government is primarily something to look out for the welfare of the people. These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"

I'm not sure there's a better solution here, but there's no denying the major differences between the two systems.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[WindowlessView]

(Have any of these people ever watched a non-op-ed, i.e., NOT Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc., hard news show on FOX News, which consumes the majority of the news day from 8am until 7pm?)

You have to be kidding. From someone who once thought Fox was somewhat refreshing - before they went over the deep end at the start of the Iraq War:

Take the morning show Fox and Friends with the two male dorks and the obligatory blonde. Hard to believe but they are more revolting than O'Reilly. I don't know why they just don't make it official and wear Team Bush cheerleading outfits and do choreographed dance routines with their choreographed commentary.

Take John Gibson and his "the world's favorite sport is hating America" book. Is this the balance to Hannity?

Or Cavuto, who practically got on his knees during his Bush interview.

Or any of the so-called business shows on Saturday morning which follows the typical Fox script of one somewhat liberal person always being shouted down by 4 or 5 conservatives.

Open your eyes.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[uradu]

When the news headline reads "Two weeks till President Bush is reelected", they fail to be a news channel. Out with the pom-poms and kick those legs!

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[stonedown]

That study is flawed. Their methodology determined that the ACLU is a right-leaning organization! (WTF?!)

Here is a long detailed article debunking the Tim Groseclose study, which has apparently never been peer-reviewed, yet another reason to ignore it.

The methodology used by the authors for assessing media ideology is completely untenable. There are three principal reasons for this:

(a) The approach G-M use establishes media ideology indirectly, by using the media's think-tank citations and comparing those to think-tank citations by legislators in order to find the legislator whose citations are the closest match. Thus, if a legislator is liberal and the media's think-tank citations match that of the liberal legislator, they would declare the media to be liberal. Momentarily setting aside the fact that this definition of media bias is itself incorrect, their claim would make sense only if it can be independently proven that the think-tanks cited by the liberal legislator are actually liberal. Their study does not prove this at all, considering that their methodology to establish think-tank ideology is itself deficient. Thus, at a fundamental level, their entire conclusion on media bias breaks down. (NOTE: It is not at all implausible that left-leaning legislators may cite more centrist think-tanks in public than progressive/liberal ones, especially considering how the liberal advocacy groups and think-tanks are tarred negatively by the GOP in the illiberal conservative media).

(b) The use of weighted-average ADA scores (for the House and the Senate) is slightly more meaningful than the Median (which they used in the original version of their paper), but even this is completely deficient and incorrect because the ideological center is set not using an independent, objective measure of ideology but based on the (political) positions of the people in Congress at a given point in time. Thus, their model simultaneously assumes that ADA scores can provide an absolute picture of a legislator's ideology but that media and think-tank ideology should be determined not using the same absolute reference but a relative, moving reference that is highly dependent on who's the majority in Congress and how they think or vote. This is not an acceptable model, for, if the minority party becomes the majority party in the next election, the derived ideology of think-tanks or the media could change significantly even though their actual positions underwent ZERO change.

Put another way, if the Republican majority suddenly decides to become 100% conservative, guess what happens. The weighted-mean ADA score would drop, even if the Democrats in Congress DID NOT change at all, and even if the media outlets that are considered "liberal", by the G-M definition, remain STATIC (i.e., no change in their think-tank citation ratios and that of the corresponding "liberals" in Congress). In this case, even though the media's ideology has NOT changed at all, it's adjusted ADA score(s) will artificially look more liberal compared to the lower weighted-mean ADA score. (BONUS FOR LEFTIES: This is right in line with one of the long-time Republican strategies of declaring the media (and Democrats) to be too "liberal" by moving the country to the Right). This is not a partisan issue though. The opposite could occur when we are talking about media outlets that are considered "conservative" because they match the citations of conservative Republicans and if the Democrats decide to become 100% liberal.

(c) The final, and perhaps most serious, problem with their analysis is their attempt to derive a conclusion of media bias using this study - because their definition of media bias, is in itself, completely flawed. Their confident conclusion that they have demonstrated "liberal" media bias is wrong because the study

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[pthisis]

And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm [ucla.edu]

which finds, in part

Our results show a very significant liberal bias.

Of course, this study has deep methodological problems that have been discussed to death in the statistical reporting community (See, e.g., Measuring Media Bias, Michael Cardwell, George Mason University, March 1, 2005). The consensus seems to be that the studied media outlets trail their consumer's tendencies in this area--that is, consumers do not, in fact, demand objective coverage, but rather demand coverage skewed to match their views, and media outlets tailor their product to consumer demands. And that changes in consumer bias precede (and drive) changes in media bias.

One of the major findings is that the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress (in large part because conservatives tend to vote more than liberals, possibly because of age correlations), so comparisons to members of Congress don't tell you whether the media is skewed relative to the general population--and, in fact, it appears that it is not.

The second upshot is that, since the general population's conservative/liberal leanings are farther to the left than a study of members of Congress would show, it turns out that not only is the media on the whole in line with the public's stance, but that the New York Times is far closer in line with the public's beliefs than is Fox News.

Note that none of this is meant as a vindication of any journalistic integrity or objectivity; on the contrary, it seems to be basically a result of the media outlets following the dollar and trying to present the news as people want to hear it.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[tm2b]

All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.

Ummm... Duh!

The average member of Congress is on the right. Of course a centrist position will be to their left. When the Democrats controlled Congress, the average member was to the left and the news tended to be to the right of the average member.

What a crock.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[Cat_Byte]

Yeah, thats what Liberal Bias is...telling people there are two sides to the story. Conservative bias is saying this is the official party line and if you think anything differently, you must not be a patriot .

It's funny because it looks exactly the opposite from the other side. Democrats seem to just 'oppose' whatever Republicans say rather than sticking to their own agenda. Look at the last election for example. I still have no clue what Kerry stood for besides not being Bush. Name some Democrats that would think the same way if you agree with the Bush policies? They definitely wouldn't say "well thats the other side of the story but you are still patriotic for saying so". The Christian remark is offensive. Nobody makes statements like that except the liberals. As for your last paragraph, you didn't watch much of the last election did you? Falsified papers about Bush, focusing on one single fact (WMDs) when there was obviously MUCH more to it. Just yesterday they replayed the speech of the final ultimatum to Saddam and it did NOT focus on WMDs. It stated that his days of tyranny and murder were over and they had 48 hours to leave Iraq. As any liberal about that 2nd side of the story and they'll be certain to dispute it was ever said and just spout out something about oil or WMDs. Liberals also conveniently forget that the entire world was behind a resolution to his regime and they all thought there were WMDs. I find it hilarious that the entire liberal population suddenly struck that from their minds and used hindsight as 20/20.

So anyway...yeah...it looks like politics in general are like that but the finger solidly points at the right as being the only ones who do it. Just look at comments about Bush, Blair, Fox, etc if you don't believe me.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[smooth wombat]

Just yesterday they replayed the speech of the final ultimatum to Saddam and it did NOT focus on WMDs. It stated that his days of tyranny and murder were over and they had 48 hours to leave Iraq.\

That's because Bush knew there were no weapons there. Bush changed the reasoning for invading and now occupying Iraq several times. First was the link to 9/11 but when that didn't pan out it was the weapons. Then it was blocking inspections (which Saddam wasn't. The inspectors left because of Bushs march to war). Then it was because of the things Saddam had done in the past (with a wink and nod from the U.S.). Then it was to free the Iraqi people and now we're at 'to spread freedom and democracy'.

Liberals also conveniently forget that the entire world was behind a resolution to his regime and they all thought there were WMDs.

False. The whole world was not behind the resolution nor did they all think there were wmds. In fact, even when the UN inspectors who were on the ground asked for the 'evidence' that the White House had of supposed wmds, every single piece proved to be false. There were no weapons or evidence of weapons at any site the White House pointed to.

Further, Scott Ritter and others, people who were directly involved with the inspections, stated that there were no wmds and were immediately singled out for the propoganda machine to try and discredit them.

The fact that you keep using the word liberal shows your bias. There are many of us true conservatives who didn't believe Bush and certainly do not approve of his policies. You aren't by chance a shill for Fox are you? After all, their people, commentators and reporters alike, like to throw out the word liberal as a means of denigration but which only goes to show how biased they are.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[hrvatska]

Interestingly, in Table 3, the most liberal news outlet is that bastion of capitalism, 'The Wall Street Journal'. Nothing else comes close.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[shaka999]

I do.

Most people would agree we have a conservative congress in place. If so then an unbiased news outlet should be to the left of the average member of congress.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[Retric]

The left right debate in this country is silly.

When was the last time someone said "Spending more on our military than the rest of the world put together seems extreme." it's all about "let's protect us from them" without a clear definition of who they are and how and why they are going to hurt us.

On the other hand when was the last time someone suggested reducing the insane subsidies to farmers in the US?

Sure people talk about the abortion issue but most Republicans would not vote for a constitutional amendment to change that unless they knew it would not pass.

Look at all the people going from government jobs to the private sector and guess how many "dirty deals" are really going on.

People talk about strengthening the US economy but when was the last time someone built a major road in the US? Congestion in the US has gotten worse over the last 10 years everywhere but nobody will talk about it. Things are going down hill fast but hey let's "leave no child behind" and "fight terror" which means what? O yea smoke and mirrors my friend some and mirrors.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[Phleg]

You know, like the Cable News Network?

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[_Sharp'r_]

the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress

Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.

A quick Google search turns up the Harris Poll that been taken from 1968 to the present.

The most recent poll from this year shows "that conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by 36 to 18 percent but that the largest number of people think of themselves as moderates (41%)."

Now compare that to the self-identification of the media and of whom they voted for. It's instantly clear that the media in general is much more liberal than the people in the country.

About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA.

Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan...

[bnenning]

The average member of Congress is on the right.

Yes, but not by much. The Republicans don't have a large majority, so the "average" member (probably median would be more accurate) is still going to be close to the center.

No Way

[Luigi30]

Of course it's not the death of paid content. There will always be a low-quality feed for free, but for a few bucks a month you will always be able to upgrade to a higher-quality feed. It's the way of the internet, and it's not going away any time soon.

Pressure from Fox?

[TPIRman]

I think the OP is correct that other sites' offering of free video likely played somewhat into the decision to go free on CNN.com, but I doubt that was the primary motivation. More compelling is the theory that CNN saw an improving Web ad market and decided that the balance sheet finally worked out in their favor again. (I say "again" because cnn.com video was free once before, way back in the day.) Indeed, a big part of this story is that CNN was able to line up major sponsors for the free-video launch.

As for pressure from Fox, CNN has been losing in the TV ratings for some time, but the people at CNN (I worked there for a while) take great pride in the fact that the website has held its own and remains one of the most-visited news sources on the Internet. Foxnews.com, while definitely drawing a large audience, isn't even close to CNN.com, so the "pressure" on that front would be more of a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses deal for CNN.com than anything else.

MSNBC.com, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to site traffic, and their free-video service has become very popular. If any significant pressure is being placed on CNN.com in the online space, it's from MSNBC rather than Fox.

Re:Pressure from Fox?

[GarfBond]

It might also be important to note that CNN has switched from Real SuperPass (and hence the RV9 they used to use) to Windows Media 9. To me, this means that they lined up another big sponsor in Microsoft.

This is a disappointment to me, as it means that I'm not entirely sure I'm always going to be able to watch these videos on a Linux or Mac system; WM10 isn't out on Mac, and obviously never will be for Linux. Real has generally been fairly consistent with clients being available for all 3 big platforms. Mplayer is nice but official clients are even better.

This isn't about nails, or coffins. Micropayments

[Phoenixhunter]

This is about finding the right balance of providing content that people are willing to pay for, and who are willing to go elsewhere for.

Ultimately this will be about finding the right number, in both how much people will pay, and how many of them will. Once we have a solid online payment solution, whether it is Paypal or Google Wallet, or whatever, that allows us to spend relatively minute amounts (ie $0.10) with ease, this shouldn't be a problem.

Pressure from Competition? Where is the evidence?

[ranson]

"Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

Apparently Drinian thinks he knows the inner-workings of CNN? I see no evidence anywhere (press release or otherwise) to support the idea that this was done to alleviate pressure from competing networks. Perhaps CNN struck some advertising deals that would yeild them more money? Perhaps they realized their subscriber base is so small that maintaining subscriptions was more costly than the revenues from them. There are lots of reasons why the video is free now and i don't think a slashdot headline is an appropriate medium to express the submitter's baseless presumption as to why it happened. With that said, lets all be happy that we have more free news :)

...another question...

[venicebeach]

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

Or, is this a nail in the coffin of paid (news) content on television?

When you can get it for free (with ads) on demand on the internet will you pay to have it on TV?

is this Microsoft only?

[worldthinker]

Confirmed. Requires Windows Media Player. blech!

Re:is this Microsoft only?

[Mnemia]

It works 100% fine for me with the mplayer plugin under Linux (w/ the WMP codecs, of course).

Is this...

[eviltypeguy]

Is this another article that wants to speak to me like I'm a contestant on Jeopardy? Seriously, the "Is this..." question at the end of "news" "articles" on Slashdot is starting to get old real fast. I'm not on a gameshow blast it!

CNN

[kevin_conaway]

Now I can see round the clock coverage of the latest missing girl / boy and who won the latest Fox reality TV show. Seriously, how come they don't report NEWS anymore? All their front page head lines are just BS.

Re:CNN

[Iriel]

I think it's mostly because the pop-American trend for TV is getting way too drama based. Every minute, the 'news' is telling you:

"Your neighborhood is no longer safe. Is the government cheating you out of hard earned money? (Insert new crash diet) is sweeping the nation with reports of (success | hospitalization). More breaking coverage on celebrities that you'll never meet."

They realized that they don't need content anymore as long as watching becomes an experience comparable to a rollercoaster or new horror/suspense film. And now it can be delivered in high quality video. Pretty soon, news video pages will be virtual copies of iFilm.com :)

Wasn't it "free" before?

[DJ Rubbie]

If I recall correctly, a while ago (3 years ago or so) CNN offered videos for free to the public before they added in a paid to view pass system.

Re:Wasn't it "free" before?

[ndege]

You are correct. CNN previously did offer "free" (with a small Ad at the beginning of the video stream) for free....after ad-based support was shown to be unprofitable, they yanked the "free" streams.

Mod parent +5 funny :-)

[tekiegreg]

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content?

HAH! I subscribe to 3 paid sites. Granted I'm a part-time investor, I find thestreet.com and wsj online to be quite handy. Also consumerreports.org for a small fee keeps me tuned to what is good out there and what is a scam.

Sure I can try and pirate the content out there, but that would require some searching and a guilty feeling for making/saving money at others expense and all these paid sites are very good in and of themselves. So paid content isn't going away any time soon.

Would I pay for CNN though? Something that I can easily find on TV? Probably not, but again by that logic, how many people watch CNN (a PAID cable channel) and still go out and pay the $0.35 for the Los Angeles Times? People will pay for what they perceive as good content, online or wherever.

No clue what you're talking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

...look, the precise complaints against Fox are that they leak in opinion to their so called "hard news" - their main anchor is pretty obvious in his political affiliation, the balance of pundits and opinions is also pretty obvious, and the few suposed "liberals" present (Alan Colmes) are essentially straw men. Compound this with their sensationalistic aspect (really scarier than any partisan bickering), and you'll see why so many people criticize Fox News.

I'm sorry, but your post amounts to little more than FUD.

Reply to article question - and more.

[Wanderer1]

"Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

No.

"Supply and Demand"

Clearly, at some juncture, things will evolve past the point where "free as in beer" is the norm, but as long as one of your competitors offers the same service for free, unless you have something people are willing to pay for, you're cannot easily compete with the guy down the street offering an open keg tap.

So far, I've paid for a Salon subscription (no longer,) and a Slashdot subscription (awhile back) because I wanted to support both enterprises. I also tend to pay PBS and a small radio station (WCPE) which provide material I enjoy with good quality or ideals that I wish to further in the world.

You may remember, CNN and Fox News get their revenue on the television by selling advertisements. Why would online be any different?

What you really should be asking yourself is: Is the future of computer network media *sales* in the hands of the podcaster? And if so, will micropayments finally succeed? Visa, Mastercard, Amex? Are you listening? And, oh, by the way, have you had enough ID theft to start using those smart-chip equipped cards yet? I am tired of waiting!

W

Re:Nail in the Coffin?

[agilen]

I do. I pay to subscribe to MLB.TV, major league baseball's live online video service. Its the cheapest way for me to watch my favorite team, who is outside the area where I live.

Now, paying for CNN online, when I can easily get it with cable, is a completely different story...not something I would do.

This is great!

[Dante Shamest]

Now I wish those p0rn sites will take notice of this too.

False Dichotomy

[Moiche]

Not to be too pedantic, but framing the discussion in terms of paid content/no paid content offers two options, neither of which is accurate. "Nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet"? Who is the poster kidding? So CNN is streaming free video. So what. NYTimes, which has long offered its daily paper free after registration (insert slashdot/NYTimes registration meta humor here), is going to start charging for its OP-ed columns, and a few other tasty morsels. Does that mean that we can expect (or have we already seen) a news item on slashdot referring to a "nail in the coffin of free content on the internet" -- because NYT is starting to charge for content?

I mean . . . it's not that hard. Intarweb is new tech, in that society had really integrated phones until about half a century after their invention, and we are still within three decades of the DARPA network. The market hasn't really figured out what works paid and unpaid on the internet -- hence the juicy webcomic discussion/controversy over whether or not micropayments work. But we can count on the fact that there will always be some stuff that is paid content (because the cost of development and provision far exceeds the potential income derived from advertising or marketing while providing the content free) and some stuff that is free. Things like the CNN streaming of live video is just the market settling -- and I guarantee that the streaming video will incorporate advertisements, so by some definitions, it's not exactly free. Seeing anything in the CNN decision regarding the larger issue of charging for content on the internet seems to me like sophomoric thinking -- unless I'm missing something?

Regards,

Moiche

Re:Ive Given Up on Internet Video

[cayenne8]

" everyone wants a different version of some player, and all the players want to own my box."

Use MPlayer , it plays just about everything out there....and does lots more than just play....

How to play CNN video on Linux

[thisisauniqueid]

It's a bit convoluted, but here's how to play these videos on Linux without having to delve into HTML and JS, and without having to use an embedded video plugin (lots of which seem to lock up and crash frequently):

- Install the GreaseMonkey extension to Firefox: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
- Install the Unembed script for GreaseMonkey: http://dunck.us/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts
- Install xine and the Windows codecs: http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/xine/
- Go to http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html in Firefox (the links on each story don't work, they check to see if WMP9 is installed, and then they fail)
- Click on the story you want.
- Right-click on the title above the embedded video (it's the name of the video in blue text, and it's in the same frame as the embedded video). Select "This Frame->Show only this frame" from the context menu.
- There should now be a link next to the video that says "[download]".
- Shift-click on the "[download]" link to open it in a new tab (right-click doesn't work, so you can't copy the link destination).
- Switch to the new tab, and press Ctrl-L Ctrl-C to copy the URL.
- Open a terminal, and type "xine " then Ctrl-Shift-V to paste the URL. Press enter and the movie should play!

Phew!

Your research study is CRAP

[sweetnjguy29]

I read the study that you are using for the basis of your opinion piece.

The methodology is to compare the number of references made by journalists to "left-wing" and "right-wing" think-tanks. The underlying assumption is that liberals will cite left-wing think-tanks more often than right-wing think-tanks. This is a bad assumption.

The way to determine media bias is to look at what the journalist is saying and determine if what is written is fact or opinion. If it is an opinion, one then determines what category (Right, Left, Center, Other) it falls under. Then you try to determine if the opinion was that of the reporter or the paper...and if it has a connection to an ideology. Its mostly guesswork.

Thus, the NY Times having 300 Headlines stating "X Soldiers Killed in Iraq" is not indicative of bias...since it is just reporting facts.

Re:Your research study is CRAP

[jadavis]

The selection of facts, and the prominence of those facts can indicate bias.

If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace. If abuses are happening, correct them (investigate, fire people, whatever) and shut up.

Wouldn't it be bias if some news source only reported horrible crimes by illegal aliens? Every time an illegal alien did something wrong, you could make it a front-page article. I bet you could skew your readers' perspective about immigration policy if you do that for long enough (they might even... *gasp* advocate enforcing the laws that we already have).

Objective is when you look at something without perspective, which is pretty much impossible. People generally consider it to be more objective if a prominent view in favor and a prominent view against are both presented, but often times there are many viewpoints. And also you can sort of set up one side to look stupid by picking a stupid advocate.

To me, the worst kind of bias is when you inject opinion into news in creative ways. Consider the following hypothetical "news" story: "Senator A introduced bill B today. The bill does C, but critics say D, E, F, G, H ...". How many times do you see that pattern to a story? They introduce something they are against, and then to argue against it they say "critics say...". It's pretty obvious to me that they are the critics, and they just want to editorialize on the front page.

Anonymous sources get kind of rediculous also. In 2008, I fully expect to see as a headline somewhere "Candidate X is a poopy-head, sources say.".

Re:Your research study is CRAP

[gstoddart]

If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace. If abuses are happening, correct them (investigate, fire people, whatever) and shut up.

Because, when you try to use moral authority to justify 'spreading democracy and freedom' to the rest of the world, and then proceed to spread lies and torture, you have no moral authority left.

And very quickly everyone else in the world will say but I just don't care much about a few Americans locked up in a prison someplace.

Saying you don't care makes you an idiot, not enlightened.

Re:Your research study is CRAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what you mean by noncitizens. Maybe you mean that those detained at Gitmo and elsewhere are not citizens? That doesn't make a lot of sense as everyone's a citizen of somewhere. Maybe you mean no american citizens have been detained as terror suspects, enemy combatants, or some other tortured word play? That doesn't make sense either, because american citizens are as at risk as non american citizens of unlawful detention.

Why is it that citizenship even begins to be an issue? Torture and abuse are immoral not because they are found by a national court to be so, but because every thinking, feeling, living human being has the fundamental right to be free of torture and abuse. That this right is affirmed by various governments means that the right is recognised, but not granted.

Why Grandma doesn't run Linux!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the reason why grandma doesn't run Linux. She'd be OK, until some Website that only runs content on IE browsers comes along, (usually on ALL of them) and BAM, "Why doesn't this work?.

Just follow these (simple?) instructions, Grandma; (and don't forget to write your own drivers for that dial-up (win)modem and re-compile your Kernel.

Linux fan who knows that Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop yet.

If this is the end...

[aslate]

According to the summary:

Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

Funny, i've been getting free news broadcasts off BBC News for ages, and it's decent news programming at that! No "free registration", random cookies and adverts either.

No, Add up the time spent watching forced ads.

[ashitaka]

You have to watch the ad. You cannot skip it, you cannot fast forward it. You are stuck watching that same flipping spot for a car sitting in a waterfall which I for one will never buy.

That's the trade off. Your time. As valuable as you make it.

Thought Police

[LPetrazickis]

Oy. Enough with the friggin' thought police.

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.

So? The average member of Congress is Republican right now. In fact, I suspect that there's also "a surprising liberal bias" among the general populace relative to the average member of Congress too.

There's supposed to be opinion drift in the media, and it's not supposed to be towards the pablum-like average. New directions and radical ideas have to be pursued. Progress beckons.

Sponsered Content

[SirSlud]

> Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

There's no such thing as free information. How can slashdot possibly print the above with a straight face; their information is 'free', but the content is highly dictated by commercial interests. Any content with advertising in it is not free. How about 'another nail in the coffin for subscriber supported unbiased editorial and news content?'

I cannot believe the shit being passed off as news. The Odd News page seems to be the very antithesis of what we need; and yet, we flock to it in droves since real news often doesn't taste so good going down.

Re:Free, but Windows only

[gavinroy]

Not that I'm advocating its use, but my OS/X box has a free Windows Media Player that's native to the OS. So, I suspect that narrows the list to *NIX based systems as being unsupported.

Damn communists

[guet]

Why do you hate freedom?

Research shows that the BBC is to the left of even the two most liberal senators in the US Senate. This makes it unsafe to watch. Also, it's funded by obligatory public subscription, which is un-American and almost socialistical.

Watch Fox news instead, where honest men and women tell it like they were told it is.

Re:Damn communists

[aslate]

Of course, the network accused of being biased against all 3 major political parties, by the respective party, is obviously highly biased!

Liberal is considered an insult in America from what i gather (Even the tone of "BBC is to the left of even the two most liberal senators" suggests that). You might want to know that the "Liberal Democrats" got 22% of the vote (After 35.2% and 32.3%).

Left, Right, Up, and Down

[Shihar]

Allow me to explain a little better. When I said the US was centrist, I didn't mean that it was centrist compared to the rest of the world. What I meant is that the parties in the US tend to converge. When you take your average republican and compare him to your average democrat, the two are not radically different. Sure, they differ on some points, but neither of them are socialist by any stretch of the imagination, nor is either one an ultra right wing anti-immigration or ultra libertarian. Now, go to nearly European. The difference between the left and the right is vast. On the left you will have a party that calls themselves a communist party, or in the very least, socialist party. On the right you have ultra-nationalist parties. It isn't that Europeans are more divided then Americans (though they might, I really can't say), it is that a parliamentary system is far more encouraging of extreme parties and far more likely to give them some say in government.

Austria's Freedom Party comes to mind as a right wing party with power that is extremely far to the right, which recently gain power. Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front also comes to mind as an extreme right winger with considerable support.

I am not saying that these people and parties represent the majority in Europe. What I am saying is that they without a doubt have a voice due to the nature of a parliamentary system. When people across the ocean across talk politics, the use of 'left' and 'right' really muddies the waters. The far 'right' in America that has any sort of political voice is nothing like the far 'right' of Europe.

For a fun exercise, try and find the economic positions of the two European parties. In both cases you will be lucky to find anything that mentions taxes, liberal economics, and free trade, the bread and butter of economic policy 'right' in America. What you will find is page after page on their immigration policies, which in Le Pen's case, is to eliminate it altogether. The European right is utterly obsessed with immigration. Now, try to find the immigration policies of an American right wing congressmen. If they live on the border with Mexico you might find a blurb about it, but it won't even be comparable to the European right wing. The American right is obsessed with free trade economics, but barely pays any attention to immigration. In fact, the guest visa system Bush has proposed would send both the European left and right up the wall. The two rights share almost nothing in common other then that they are not socialist.

While left and right are easy terms to shoot off, they really ignore the full range of the political spectrum and lead to gross misunderstandings, especially when trying to translate it across the old pond. For instance, the 'far right' American Libertarians could not even sit in the same room with the 'far right' National Front of France without killing each other.

There is NO liberal media. There is a LAZY press.

[saskboy]

They disagree with "liberal" media outlets, because those outlets don't openly lie and distort the truth in the name of entertainment like Fox News does. They are not always "yes men" for the Bush Administration. These days telling the news or ignoring it [as in World events], is synonymous with "liberal media", and "fair and balanced" is synonymous with "lie through your teeth if it hooks viewers and supports the Bush administration.

The American media is so messed up I was tempted to use a swear word instead of "messed up" [but I'm trying to keep slashdot a family website ;-)]. Bill O'Idiot routinely lies, and all you have to do is listen to him speak for 5 minutes to know that, or listen to Al Franken and he'll explain it to you while offering background for the lies.

All Americans don't have to agree with what their media is broadcasting, but if the media is telling them anything other than the facts within context, then Americans are being MISLEAD. The myth of the free press has been exposed many times, and it angers me that more Americans seem upset about what is portrayed as "liberal bias" by right wing spin doctors like Coulter and O'Idiot, instead of the fact that all of their media outlets simply publish White House propaganda verbatim, are lazy, and are corporate whores.

The Press is supposed to be relaying facts, it isn't supposed to be popular entertainment that tries to win over viewers by appealing to the viewer's political biases.