Are We Real News or Tabloid?

Here's my view

History is not concrete, history are just a ton of fragments and so is news. Believe what you want.

Either its the news or sleezy bought off court reporters being totally fucking rogue.

Tabloid or Propaganda Piece? Which is worse?

I agree with the initial agrument here. I try to vote on a variety of different things in the hopes to give Current more flavor.

However some things get lost in the passion of the moment such as objectivity, logic, and common sense in favor of pseudo-intellectual soundbites that sound clever but don't really resolve anything. Some of your comments just strike me as broad sweeping comments that I have seen time and time again throw out there.

You should have focused more on Current and the news and pods that get put on TV and less on your political agenda. Is this about Current or the Goverment or the Mass Media?

find the thred of life that interests you, folow it back and you will find a human at the other end just as interresting, it is, human what are they doing.??
being ...!!! who they recognise as human beings.
slow state of evolution, they should just be and it will be.

as it is writen in the stars....

The important thing is that participatory news is here. Regardless how you consider the weight of it, the flow of topical information is no longer a spectator sport. What would normally have been fodder for junior producers and editors, is now in the hands of the end user. Hooray for the age of engaging news.

i think, it dosen't help, but if you find an iterest
area, some thing important to you and add to it,
current is only a colective canvas, it is up to us to organize it,use current to help evolve our culture into a future culture, current is an amazing tool, it's potential is not yet recognized, not even by it's staff, much potential lays sleeping just under the surface of the current.

gent jim

I use to love current, still come here regulary. I vote on a lot of things. But recently when I try to vote nothing happens. I tap the vote up button and nothing happens. I watch current and see some of the dumbest stuff. When the real issues have a negative ratings. I am getting a little tired of it. I think I will check out some of the other sites to see if they are any better. Sorry current, but I think you sold out. Either that or the ruling party is a little dull and showing stuff that noones care about unless they are between the ages of 12yrs and 35yrs. Still babies.

IT IS WHAT WE MAKE IT , IT IS A GREAT TOOL,
WE CAN SHAPE INTO, WHO WE ARE AND WARE WE ARE GOING,BUT ONLY IF WE EXAMINE OR SELVES AND FOCUS ON CHANGE.

IT IS, WHAT IT IS AND

THAT'S ALL
IT WILL EVER BE,

JUST LIKE ME.

GENJIM

As I become increasingly vested in current, my interest in the controversies grows. Thank you Plisko for your careful exposition of your point of view.

Uh. Im sorry. this video dosent make sense to me. Its long winded, slow paced, and dosent have a unifying point.

C:N is a feed of community run media and the Popular +Timely+ Relevant(Really there's a formula for this) stories are going to end up on top and not necessarily important ones. If you want to win a Pulitzer go back to school and get your journalism degree(which you cant get without learning how to use spell check) and then go make a couple of millions of dollars and start a publishing company that aspires to your lofty ideals. If you don't tank then you might get enough attention to earn yourself a Pulitzer prize. But thats just probably not going to happen at current.

To claim that the most important stories are not being voted up is a slap in the face to the thousands of people casting their votes.

Just becasue the story you're intersted in isnt on air or at the top of the ranking does not mean its not ready. If you really feel so passionately about that topic go out and produce it, not just clip it. Contribute.

Plisko-

*tips hat* You my good sir have managed to summarize the situation as eloquently and succinctly as anyone could hope for.

You are a fabulous communicator- kudos of the highest degree!

I don't think it is about lacking forward thinking so much as surrendering to the pressures of commercial thinking.

Someone should have asked Al Gore how he planned to help people rethink their ideas about the media while also making a profit. The default position of making a profit in TV is to pander to the interests of the masses. The default position of a movement for change is to challenge the masses to be something bigger and better than they are. The default position of a commercial venture is to show a profit in the balance sheet. The default position of a movement for change is to do what ever is necessary and accept the fact that there will be resistance, scorn, ridicule and lower popularity at first that needs to be punched through before coming out the other side to get the payoff (changing the world).

Commercial ventures that have been major movements for change were more often than not the ones that had very brave and visionary people behind the wheel who put everything on the line and risked total failure because they believed their idea would work in the end. My favorite example is Apple Computer. Steve Jobs almost bankrupted Apple. The Mac failed miserably for the first few years. Everyone laughed at the California Hippies with their picture computer. The board of directors was freaking out and on the verge of taking over. Steve had vision though, he knew it would work. It was inconceivable to him that it wouldn't. And then it did. . . . and now everybody reading this is doing so on Steve's vision of how to operate a computer.

In my mind, Current faced these same challenges and the same potential but about a year ago they "blinked" while staring down the doomsayers. They are now trying to walk the line between playing it safe for commercial purposes and championing a new grass roots standard to the media. These are two completely opposing goals. What we end up with is something that has attracted more people, but become less capable of being meaningful. What we have is something that is neither an entirely great success nor a great force for change.

The other great challenge is the chasing of the "youth demographic." The 18-34 demo (usually with males as the priority) is a group of people with nothing in common except that advertisers want to reach them the most. It is an advertising wish list, not a "generation" or a sociological group. Their interests are so varied that the only common themes that attract all of them are the lizard brain desires (think Access Hollywood and Fear Factor). So a really great piece on civil liberties that a 34 year old family man might find important could be something that an 18 year old Sk8erboy finds boring and uncool. And so it is given a lower priority as ratings potential. A video showing well endowed women demonstrating trampoline exercises, however, is something that attracts the eyes of both the 18 year old and the 34 year old males as a chemical certainty. . . making it a more tempting priority to the programmers. So . . understandably. . this also creates a gravity that pulls the network away from meaningfulness and toward the interests of advertisers. Advertisers want to know how many people are watching, not how important the content is.

Unfortunately, the standard in the business world is that investors want to see profits, not change. So, if commercial success is the operating standard, the gravity of profit always wins in the end. The goals for being new and unique and inspiring change become something that must be slipped between the cracks of the commercial goals. .

. . and so here we are. . .

I think it's worth noting that broadcasting news and information was originally considered a public service and networks ran news divisions at a loss as part of their obligation to be licensed. The reasoning was that information would be less meaningful if it was filled with the attention getting gimmicks that entertainment uses.

good thing is that there is way more out there than Current (as Plisko listed...and much more beyond his list) when you need to get some meat on your bones and that is what I do.

Current is good. But could be Great if it got more forward thinking. For now they are satisfied with "good" for whatever reason.

Good to see you still poking around here anyway Plisko.

There is nowhere on the web to have your voices heard regarding news items?

http://digg.com/

There is nowhere on the web where you vote for TV network content?

http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1518072&vid=260013http://

There is nowhere where you vote on news items you like?

http://www.parislemon.com/2007/11/vote-on-facebook-news-feed-items-now.html

Nobody else is doing avant guard news?

http://www.vbs.tv/

http://therealnews.com/t/

There's no other network doing inde content and/or important news stories?

http://www.democracynow.org/

http://www.linktv.org/

This is not the only place trying to inform people in a better way and get them participating more.

Also, all cool stuff aside. . .you don't VOTE on Current when it comes to programming. You suggest. You can use your voice. . but you are voicing a recommendation and a TV insider ultimately decides whose"voice" is heard.

The reason people like me are still around saying this stuff is not because we like to whine. It is because we feel we have lost a more powerful and authentic version of what you are claiming we have.

I don't know about everyone else but here in Texas all of the local news stations spend alot of time reporting on the celebs and local crime, i don't care what anyone says you learn more on current than anyother station, national news reports the same things over and over atleast on current we the people have the opportunity to have our voices heard. And like stradius said vote on the news this is the only station that actually gives you that chance.

Love the video- gets the point across and I am feelin ya-

Ever consider an editor though? Grammar and spelling mistakes will lose your more intellectual audiences. The message is presented smartly, but the nature of some will be to only see the errors and lose sight of how important the words and their meanings are.

I've followed Current since "The Seeds of Tolerance" contest which I thought was incredible. As of present, I completely agree with Plisko. I was a top contributor of 2007 but as of 2008, I have decided to find other online outlets; ones that respect their users a bit more and finds ways to not just fulfill the masses desires, but rather that of the authentic and serious.

The current Current model is a move to a masturbatory list serve where the individual matters more than the stories that will affect the users.

Thank you Plisko and keep up your own good work. It will pay off regardless of the "redesign".

A little history from my perspective:

Once upon a time Current TV was designed to attract independent video producers who wanted to create real and important news stories and change the definition of TV. They would evaluate each others submissions and vote on which one deserved to be aired on Current. The more these people participated the more their vote counted towards getting their peers work onto TV. There was also, along side those producers, a crowd of passionate website users who wanted to be "citizen programmers" and help push only the important original stories forward. This was all possible because there was a "leaderboard" system where only the independent and original submissions by these producers was up for votes. The winners would go on TV whether the staff wanted it or not. In house programming was also not a part of this mix. You knew when you were voting that you were only choosing stuff that independent, avantguard, producers had created often specifically for this "new TV" format.

Then came the cries of "elitism" from a minority of the website members who felt that these independent producers, and the fans that supported them, were getting too powerful on the website (despite the fact that this was sort of the point and a mark of success in the concept). Then, also, came concerns from Current's top management that allowing the producers and viewers too much control over putting stuff on TV would create "the PBS effect" which was described as "only serious and heavy topics would end up getting on TV and it will bring people down"

These two simultaneous events reinforced each other and it led to an "intervention" on the part of Current's leadership which resulted in "current.com" a radical departure from the "open source" design that Current once had. Some of us might even call this a "takeover" of the journalistic democracy that had taken root.

Current.com killed all the features that once nurtured and encouraged these citizen journalists and moved to a "digg" model where people basically grab other people's work on the web and post it as an "item of interest." The producers who were making "lighter" content were encoraged by being chosen directly by staff and sometimes even getting in house contracts. They also started casting a wider net for the audience (that same old audience that networks want so bad that they degrade the quality of their programming to get them). This attracted a less focused crowd of people, many of whom have been perfectly happy with TV as it is today.

Now, today, anybody can submit a story without going to the effort required to create one from scratch, many of those passionate original producers, and the fans they brought with them, have long left in frustration, in house content is all mixed up with original stuff and outside stuff so you can't tell what is what, and 75% of the postings on the front page are posted by in house staff.

The fact that people are now saying that Current is beginning to look superficial comes as no surprise to me. . . . or some others. . .

Now. . . if this comes across as "snark" as defined by the community standards then let me provide the required disclaimer:

This is my view and my view only as a former independent producer who had 5 pods voted onto TV by the audience during the earlier time I described. People like me, supported by members despite the staff, can no longer exist because the voting is now a "suggestion" to the TV people. The TV people are doing great work . . but they are handicapped by their own expertise and doing what they know: applying the Viacom model of a TV network to Current with some additional bells and whistles.

As a result of this, I am frustrated and angered by what I have witnessed and I occasionally express it. The hope is that maybe things will swing the other way as more people begin to see the consequences of this "redesign."

This is going very well for you SN. The pod is evolving and you are getting more and more responses. I agree that what got me involved with current was the chance of knowing info that wasn't available to the general public. I want to make informed decisions and I want others to know where they can get more info to make their own intelligent decisions. And it's true that there have been some fluff on this site lately that I wish could stay on other media. Keep up the good work!!!

You raise some interesting questions, but I found it hard to concentrate because of the repetitive nature of
both the music and the visuals.

If the real news is getting buried, isn't current one station where we could all do something to change that?

There are useless stories being printed here, and it's the same everywhere else! (remember how paris hilton being released from jail was top news?)
Vote down shoddy stories and vote up what you think what we need to hear. As all high school social teachers will tell you, you can protest, protest, protest, but the most useful thing you can do is vote.

The true mark of success in Media is when it's most fervent contributors start to disect, analize and criticize it's content.
Congratulations, Current TV and ".com".
You've hit that wall.

Another year, another website iteration, another redefined business plan, a new crop of viewers and users on the site and....

....the same core complaints still exist at Current.

Kind of makes ya go.. hmm....

-zen

It does seem like more tabloidy type crap is popping up here lately. The reason I loved this site so much is because it was a breath of fresh air. I truely hope it stays that way.

I respect current but I think understand where you are coming from. Sure there are some pointless stories being reported here. At times I do feel bad that I even voted for some of them. Current is very informative on a lot of issues in their shows(Vanguard for example) that sometimes some shows like on CNN do not report. We, as viewers, should contribute the stories that we think everyone should care about concerning both domestic and foreign affiairs and not just the"pop" fluff stuff.

This video deserves a vote up! Great job!

Excellent Idea Vote the trash down.

oh yeah and lets begin a vote it DOWN campaign if its innocuous rubbish that you can find on E! or mtv or the cover of those rags that burn to the touch. VOTE IT DOWN

evolution of anything is a process.
how evolved are you?

if we want better stimulation and information you have to find it and put it out there.
the media is a machine ran by those that believe ONLY that "follow the formula" rule. they are not your friends trying to stimulate you in to uprising.
they want you to stimulate there dollar signs
but that sort of media "HYPE"is for a certain type of person, un-evolved I say

It is not for the internet generation. and there is no age, rhyme, or reason to those that belong here. we know what we like but there are less of us and more of them

FIGHT THE POWER

absolutely! thank you for saying it out loud!

Life is not only serious and real news, we need a bit of fluff and a bit of comedy too, for relief. :)

so not true.

I caught that video tape the other week of the Bush library lobbyist scandal.

I can't believe something that profoundly horrifying (seriously, I'd rather have watched hours upon hours of PETA undercover work) got so buried. It was a total by-the-way afterthought (if that) in the little news coverage it had.

Washington Post buried it on page A.24. Without its own headline (it was in a series of 2 other, unrelated postings).

Seriously.

I think you are getting better and better at this stopnoise, one of these days one of your pieces is going to hit big time.

I especially like the line about Homeland Security being a joke when we are getting attacked by people in our own country....great line.

Hey Twodee, there is a big white space on top of your reply. I think is tab return spaces. Anyway I remember that pod and I did voted green for it. Not sure why they did not air it. It is a great idea using recycle materials Best!

I think I know whre you are coming from on this one. Current looks at ratings as well as any other station. I think some of the best shows that come out of curent are from the vanguard department, "from russia with hate" was great and it showed. Laura Ling also had some pods about Myanmar at a time when not alot of news was actually coming out of there. The bulk of the news and stories are coming from the viewers. But the select few, which are the producers seem to be able to get the spots on TV. I would love to do pods on the war and environmentalism but it all comes down to $$$'s and at this point I'm only able to make pods about things happening with in a 60 mile radius of my home... crazy gas prices are even hurting the part time filmmakers.

Maybe its some clips on "InfoMania"...I could be wrong, though.

I see where many people get frustrated by different things that get viewed compared to those that do not.....the thing I like about the way current is set up is that over time after watching responses by different people you seem to get a little network of like minded souls.....there is a large variety of submissions and opinions.....having a choice is what I have always loved about America and the times I have been lucky enough to witness......what is news to one person is not neccesarily news to another.......opinions are wonderful as long as you remember that you are basically the only one that will ever realize how great yours are.......and never try to force them on others.........Golden Ruler.......Will...............................

Ok I stand guilty for voting up the girly video games story. I really didn't expect them to pick my comments for tv either. Point taken. One thing I do notice is that Current users don't seem to be very concerned about our crashing economy.

keep hammering away Stopnoise. good job. i like the video too.

just a thought on a trivial thing in your video. if you have 2 tracks available for music and you are looping the same thing it is often handy to lay them on alternate tracks and cross fade them. That way you can get the beat lined up. just a thought from someone who has mixed a shxt load of sound over the years. play with it. kinda fun.

I see where you are coming from. Yes, some real news gets batter away. Others new that gets put on is like a fun fact of the hour instead of news.

"The United States is at War" hurts me because I know alot of people who aren't effective by the war forgot already that we are in one. Just because there is no news about the war. And yes, I was P.O when the game for girls was the headline, instead of more informative stuff.

The other side to this, we got to look who is finding this stuff and who likes it. I guess alot people were like "wow, no one ever put movie triva into a game before." I mean, there is a percentage who knows the frontman of Chiodos and was hurt when I posted that he was to recover from a suicide attempted. Yet, RUMORS of the "Dark Knight" oscar nominations rose really fast even though EVERYONE ELSE was covering it also.

If things are getting covered by big media companies, should we cover them already if we can just change the channel to find out about it? Or should current seperate "news"from "fun facts."

Is everyone voting on the news every day? The news line up is participatory. Please spend at least as much time voting as you do preparing submissions.

I agree man, some of most important stories are going un-reported here.