Home
2008:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
2007:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2006:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2005:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2004:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2003:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2002:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2001:
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2000:
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

(keitai-l) Re: gimmick, but....

From: Dirk Rösler <dirkREMOVE_at_tkm.att.ne.jp>
Date: 02/18/03
Message-Id: <2C247726-431B-11D7-8A4F-0030654492C6_at_tkm.att.ne.jp>
As nice and empowering your theory sounds, in my opinion there are some=20=

flaws in it making it wishful thinking:

First it is not the increased capability of capture which makes the=20
event. The event is there first, then ensues its capture.

Then secondly the number of newsworthy (admittedly, this term depends=20
on one's definition) events is finite. There will not be more relevant=20=

news just because there's more people out there ready to capture it.=20
You may say that in turn more events will be reported, which leads to=20
point three.

Thirdly not all events deserve the capture, simply because there is a=20
natural upper bound on the demand of news or reporting. The audience=20
will stick to what's relevant, thereby limiting what is put into the=20
system and standard editing takes place. Editing has its own problem:=20
say a camera takes a picture, what's next? Forward to 5 news agencies,=20=

ten television stations and 20 newspapers?

In plain English: we may be technically able to see plenty of cute=20
pictures of babies, cats etc, but nobody has an interest in these=20
trivial things. We will see events that have been events before, but=20
better documented because there is greater probability that someone is=20=

taking a picture, or pictures from different angles etc. Also useful=20
for police or accident investigators.

There is however a greater potential for niche news, for people with a=20=

particular interest, but not within the mainstream. But the bottom line=20=

is that more cameras doesn't mean more or better news.

Dirk


On Tuesday, Feb 18, 2003, at 15:16 Asia/Tokyo, Erik H=F6rnfeldt wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Its not an gimmick. Mobiles with cameras ill soon start to have a
> major impact on all other media. Think 11/9 with live video feeds
> coming from most of the people trapped in the buring towers. Thinmk
> million and million of newsteams and every event, big or small,
> covered more or less live.
>
> Think telecom turning into telecam.
>
> Erik H
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2003 at 21:06, Nick May wrote:
>
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765549.stm
>>
>> A bit gimmicky, but interesting to see that even aunty beeb is
>> prepared to use phone-cams.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> This mail was sent to address erik_at_hornfeldt.se
>> Need archives? How to unsubscribe? =
http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
>>
>>
>
> "Be, know, do!"
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Erik H=3DF6rnfeldt           <all the usual disclaimers apply>
> mobile +46 733 55 7404, mobile video +46 35 33 7404
>
>
>
>
> This mail was sent to address d.rosler_at_jens.co.jp
> Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
>
Received on Tue Feb 18 10:29:30 2003