Current TV- True Democracy or Commercial Con?

The BBC isnt

Current TV is now available widely on British Digital Television- what can it offer in the way of public television that the BBC cant? Isn't it just another station that can cater for another niche sub group and in turn, sell that group some products?

The BBC isn't a commercial venture and is one of the only television stations in the world that isn't. The question of selling products is an interesting one, but reality dictates the rules of engagement for broadcasting progressive messages. You can't re-invent the wheel to get a fresh message out, you have to be realistic.

The real question is that of Current's content and its difference to other media outlets. The BBC are just as entangled in the mess journalism has got itself into as any other TV station is. They rely on the journalism institution to get their information to broadcast to the world, they rely on government handouts, embedded journalism and press releases. As a general rule, media outlets are becoming compromised and are frightened of their own ability to investigate.

Current offers to the mainstream what the internet has offered to a niche. A whole new way of gathering and sharing information - we can now see the views of people, not journalists, who are at the heart of world conflicts or catastrophe's. There is no system in place to control that, it is simply people wanting to tell their story to as many people as possible.

The BBC is such a huge institution that it can't modernize and re-format itself at anywhere near the pace it needs to to keep up with digital age. It is this that has made the internet explosion of the last few years so prominent - new ideas and higher ideals can be developed at an astonishing rate. Just look at the size and influence of websites like reddit and digg.

If you're only criticism is that Current has to remain a commercial entity because it has to use advertisements to stay afloat then I think this is evidence that it is doing extremely well. The relatively low cost of digital broadcasting and the management of websites means that ideals in broadcasting can come higher up the chain than a desire to make money.

You can reference that directly to me if you clip it in your essay.

"Harper, Phil, "Current TV - True Democracy or Commercial Con?" Current TV, 2007. Front Page"

You say that 'there is no system in place to control' (gathering and sharing information)'

The viewpoints section of the site says,

'Make a point. Change the conversation.'

The only conversations going though are, 'University' 'Obesity'etc
none on Media Control,

who has decided these realms of discussion and why?

That isn't a system of control, thats a method of stimulating debate. You can get on the website, click "add something new" and video blog about anything you choose.

The viewpoints section is for people who want their views to be broadcast on television. This is a beta website, and maybe a suggestion to make viewpoints democratic would be welcomed.

If you like Noam Chomsky, which I assume you do since you tagged your article with him and you're studying media, then current is the biggest answer to the even bigger problem Chomsky highlights.

I think Current is a great experiment in bringing back the two way Democratic dialogue that has been reduced to one way dialogue due to a media in this country that wants it that way to control the message. You control the message, you control the user. When the user controls the message however, it is a much different scenario. What other station allows you the means to mold its content like this? I also don't see it as exploitation at all. I see it as a means of communication that gives people who may otherwise not have had a voice to have one. This is all voluntary here, and I contribute here because I want my voice to be heard and am grateful for this medium to do so. However, with that said, it seems that in this medium you cannot have a sustaining television station unless some fluff is thrown in. But I think the preponderence of it here compared to other media venues pales in comparison, and even with the fluff a two way dialogue to say you think it is crap is at least available. In a one way dialogue you don't have that option, you are simply told what it is and to accept it. Sure, I find some of the stories that make it to the front page here to be total fluff, but we also see stories you will not find on MSM and I am hoping that will become more prevalent. Yours made it here, and I tell you right now that wouldn't happen on FOX News. I love being here and I like this concept. I hope more begin to take advantage of the huge opportunity we have here to make this station the catalyst for the two way dialogue that preserves Democracy to show the MSM how it's done. OK, off my soapbox now.;-)

This is a great topic to have a dialogue about. Thanks for asking about it Freddie. I have things to say and will gather my thoughts in another post. I hope many people (including more staff) chime in on this.

Too much tripe on Current.

I'd hoped that, since this was billed as a 'political' site, that there would be more discussion of important or meaningful issues.

I'm disappointed to see so much trivia, and so many silly responses to what is up there.

Its a virtue that the site isnt entirely 'political'-

If it were it would be in danger of accusations of purely being a 'Democratic' site (with a higher case 'D') and not the 'democratic' site that it seems to want to to become...
...or at least that it appears to want to become...

ps- there weren't any doormen at the Greek Polis- 'tripe' and all surely must be a part of the site if it is to become 'democratic'...

Dialogue is KEY here! It is my general impression that we have lost the ability to have dialogue both here and in the real world. If you follow most of the threads here you see they are extremely short lived. Have we just broken our attention span? Do we just opt out of the conversation when we are no longer the ?winner? in it? If so, does this mean we want to be heard but we do not want to listen to others? Sure CurrentTV is a good place to put your viewpoint. But is anyone rally paying attention to you outside of your usual circle in your ?my current? collection? I have noticed that the front page publications are usually the same circle of people. I am confused by that. Also, the POD selection process makes no sense at all. Some pods with 100% scores are moving all over the place while some with 50% approval sit in the top 10. I have no idea of the value of my greenlighting something when hours later it gets kicked to the back of the line. This makes NO sense.

Is it a commercial entity? In the same way the American democracy is a commercial entity. Can we take the money out of politics? What would that system look like? Everything that needs to be pushed up front for people to witness needs to be funded by something. Abstractly thinking, how would this world work without money? This was not such an abstract thought at one time in human history. Was it? What would you (anyone) do if you did not need money to be in the world? What would you do with your time? It looks like CurrentTv is an open political/economic platform. But it is limited to choices made behind it?s curtains and what it?s financial backers are comfortable with.

who are these backers though? (n.b I'm happy with Gore)

but then surely its representative democracy (in the sense we allow these individuals to make the really big calls in Current's content) and not the Athenian direct democracy that it seems to guise itself as.

part of the reason the threads are short, at least in my experience, is because new things are being posted every day that catch my interest. It's hard to keep up with the hundreds of threads i've commented on.

stephenthomson. I agree. and i do that too. This place is overload to me. Like I said when this new website launched,,,,,this feels like an internet within an internet. I don't actually see the point of dumping everything under the sun into this location. That is already what the internet is. I find myself NOT commenting on most of the stuff I agree with and more likely to comment on the stuff that I do not agree with.

well Current isnt the perfection of democratic television, but it is a HUGE step toward that goal

I enjoy current, but I do wish more people commented back and forth with discussion. There are so many topics of importance, it's hard to get one discussion going. I look forward to the day when politics isn't my main concern and I have time to visit the other catagories. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time in the day to do it all. After work, dinner, the family, there's only a short time to post and read the political posts, along with huffingtonpost.com and various others.

Personally, I think that this thread captures one of the most important ideas behind what Current is about. We the users and contributors of this site are actively voicing concerns we have in open forum. And I found this thread on the front page of the site for all to see. Not only is it our right to question the leadership and motives of this organization, but it's our responsibility.

Current is far from perfect, and if it is to last, it will always be a work in progress--always evolving. I would love to see this separated from outside commercial interests, and with work, lots of collaboration, and a few great ideas that could be possible. But just try having this conversation about any other television network.

I am thrilled to have Current. It's such an exciting step towards re-opening the 2-way channels of public communication in this world. It won't be the complete answer, but the opportunity to take advantage of it is priceless.

The biggest difference between Current and stations like BBC is that if enough people vote, ANYTHING can get on Current TV (at least I'd like to think so). Whilst the BBC simply wouldnt allow say something that seriously goes against the BBC, unless they do something wrong, i.e. waste tax payers money etc. which they are obliged to report on.

Yh, ok on Current there is a lot on the environment, and politics, which you could say is linked to Al Gores interests. But if you think about it, Current is aimed at a demogrpahic. That demographic is interested in this kind of thing too. If we werent then we wouldnt vote them and put them on TV in the first place. On another note, one of the best parts of Current for me is the Google Current, and Top virals section. Again, shows the range of Current TV.

I think Current is a superb concept as I'm sure you all do otherwise you wouldnt be on here. Sure it has adverts and hence IS commercial, but unlike American channels, they arent scared of upsetting sponsors, and have the freedom of expression. The whole VC2 idea is fantastic. I've shown Current to similarily minded people, and they are hooked.

@MSSS

"I'd hoped that, since this was billed as a 'political' site"

It was never billed as a political site.
Why do you think it was?

I agree with StephenT and TwoDee on the subject. It isn't a political site, however, the political topics section does get many posts that have nothing to do with the subject. It is hard to keep a good conversation going on one subject while trying to keep up with the new. However, it's the closest thing I know of to a democratic site online.

theelman say:"on Current there is a lot on the environment, and politics, which you could say is linked to Al Gores interests" OK...THis is very interesting to me.... I see many posts about political stuff and that makes sense because there is a big election in the America next year. ON TV.... There is VERY LITTLE about political and environmental stuff. I think AL Gore has almost nothing to do with anything posted to CurrentTV. Outside of his posting a few comments he has never asked anyone to post certain subject matter and he has nothing to do with selecting amterial that gets posted or put on TV.

Between 8pm and 12pm on Monday night CurrentTV shows these 7 pods about foreclosures, bombs in Algiers, water boarding, prejudice against redheads, protest signs, E-waste, and a musician who is a doctor. The other 21 things are about guitar hero, a superstar, a band, juggling, Beckham, Dan Fogelberg, monster trucks,bungee cord jumping, Bollywood, Britney Spears Guy, a street sport, film review, a vintage car, heated wetsuit, steroid use, antagonist movement, exotic food, civil war reenactment, adopting highways, an exotic restaurant chain, love songs.

RE: Twodee "I see many posts about political stuff and that makes sense because there is a big election in the America next year. ON TV.... There is VERY LITTLE about political and environmental stuff. I think AL Gore has almost nothing to do with anything posted to CurrentTV. Outside of his posting a few comments he has never asked anyone to post certain subject matter and he has nothing to do with selecting amterial that gets posted or put on TV."

Not exactly what I meant. I didnt mean Al Gore says "Put this on", 100% i'm sure this does not happen. What I meant is its aimed at people with similar views, i/e/ Free thinking educated people, who are interesting in finding out about things that dont directly affect them etc, but is of interest. Something you would never see on BBC or ITV News for example, and you wouldnt search for as you would have no idea what you were looking for. Prime example, a pod I saw on young people living in Palestine. This kind of alternative news pod is part of what Current is about for me. interesting, different, personal, political in subject not bias. Whilst true not many pods are environmental in subject matter, bar the recent Save the Earth in 30s thing, I would say most pods do glorify nature in some indirect way (thinking extreme snowmobiling, tombstoning, off the top of my head), but then again nature is amazing so it should be expressed!

But for me the other side of Current, the "entertainment" (for lack of a better word) pods, such as ones like video journals, Burning Man, Travel pods, Scottish Organic Beer etc., is the best part of Current. no other TV channel can offer that sort of reality TV that is actually interesting. And if its not, just wait 5 minutes and it might be, or if your lucky Kelly Blaise might come on.

i am not totally against the entertainment part of CurrentTV. I am pointing out the heavy load of it. There is WAY too much in my opinion. But I am not the demographic they are entertaining. It's for the kids. You mention Snowboarding and Tombstoning as glorifying nature? ummmm....wow! There may be a bigger disconnect with nature than I thought.

no no no no no!! I didnt say snowboarding and tombstoning glorify nature. I meant the pods were all set in stunning locations, hence what I meant.

I don't really think that this is a Democratic site.... well i take that back its not like an anarchy ether becuase the co. desides waht airs and its not like we get a say in that so its not democracy so i gess it could be called a dictator ship one thats really awsome but still a bit of a dictatorship

A Liberal Child - I'd be keen to know why you think this is a dictatorship...

A Liberal Child, I am not sure we would all be writing these words if this were a dictatorship. The thing to remember is that this is a business. It is not a government. It is a company that needs to make money. It has a bunch of rules that it needs to adhere to. It is VERY public. As free as CurrentTv wants to be there are limits. One of the limits is public opinion. And public opinion is a very limited world view. When Picasso and Braque and the Cubists introduced CUBISM into the public eye it was met with distaste and anger. The public really hated it. Now it is so commonplace that I would guess just as many people know the name Picasso as the product Coke. While the TV programming remains limited to that more narrow public opinion the WEBsite does provide a platform for some of the more interesting things that fall between the cracks of public awareness or that the public just can?t get interested in for whatever reasons. I am not saying this is a place for experimental art either. Most people posting video work are trying to squeeze their stories into the TV Programming (Myself included). If we want our stories to be heard by the many people who watch we need to try to cater to the demographic they have wrapped themselves with while staying true to the stories we value. This is were we as video/story tellers have the opportunity to change public opinion and awareness at whatever micro scale we can. Changing public opinion goes at a snails pace and it takes many voices to do it. We are all given a shot at doing this here. I will admit it is extremely frustrating at times and often feels like swimming upstream. Ultimately the Staff does choose what goes to TV even when it feels like we are voting on something. Keep knocking on that door and hope they will open it. I think it is less valuable to post your story/opinion/vision into the black hole of YOUTUBE or something like it so that someone will one day trip on it. CUBISM happened over time, swimming up stream, against public opinion and eventually got the public to recognize it and learn how to look at things differently. And even then, not everybody likes it. And that is my 2 cent rant for this mornings cup of coffee.

But surely no matter of 'persistance' or 'knocking on the door' will get a video on air that would otherwise compromise advertising demands. (I assume) the programming department are informed by the advertisers what audience and demographic their product is aiming for, and this audience is in turn catered for with the most appropriate pods-
also... do you (anyone adding to this post) use Current.com more than watch Current TV. Because personally, Im on the site far more than I am in front of the TV, and perhaps this is where the production line ends and the market begins. We the particpatory web user are the 'producer' and the TV audience is the 'consumer'-
any thoughts!?

current is an idea put into action, maybe one day it will become the new pbs, trying to trim out the bad sides of it and adapting to the new internet environment. the way in which they operate must be to some extent related to what the writers are fighting for, proper distribution of $ from the web, i wonder how proper it is at current. also, think about the need there was before for independent minds doing their thing and it being so good but it never got a real chance to be shown to millions, well, this is that chance. it also seems to be a monster in progress and mutating every now and then, remember how the site used to look like 2 years ago? the only thing i wonder is if it will ever become a npo, that would be awesome. last, maybe it is the web oriented producer feeding the tv audience, but if anything, its allure towards interactivity, interaction, something more than just a machine that shows moving pictures, or another machine that we use for work for so many hrs, tv and internet, now that they are merging, current seems to be trying to give that momentum some sort of leveled guidance.

ps: current, thanks for the hoodie and the hat, im such a sucker for merchandising...not

pps: dont ask me what leveled implies

As many of you have said, Current.com gives us all a voice that we wouldn't have in any other format. Many other news or op-ed's require "approval" before you can post an opinion. We can go to one place and find any and everything we have an interest in, much of it not available on main stream media without a lot of dedicated research on behalf of everyone here . . . and we can participate or not. It's the closest thing to free speech I've found, and if Current.com chooses to decide what goes on the home page, it's their company and they have that right.