TWIT moves to the East Side

I don't do much TWIT coverage anymore mostly because I don't believe in beating a dead horse.  On occasion, however, there are noteworthy events that require no context and no explanation.

Honestly, there's rarely much that comes out of the house the Leo built that's worth covering.  I'll save the morbid voyeurism for sites like totaldrama.org.

Which leads me to the video below.  If anything punctuates the sad state of TWIT it's watching the cadre of TWIT regulars ride an open air bus to a sad little office park.  Listen closely and you'll hear unmistakable subtext of unhappiness.

The long last looks at the old studio,  the constant jokes about the seedy neighbors of the new one and the apologetic tone for everything the new studio isn't once they arrive.

It's a capitulation brought about by a reality check even if the public face of TWIT denies the reality.

Still, it's the most lively broadcast to come out of TWIT in a long time.  So whether you're fan, foe or like me indifferent to TWIT the following should provide entertainment nonetheless.

Kind of like the morbid curiosity one finds at staring at the aftermath of a car crash.

UPDATE!  Recent events ( AKA Copyright Strike ) has removed my ability to provide video coverage of the event. Meaning I can only provide a link to TWIT instead of the video that was here before.  This is due to the fact that apparently Lisa Laporte, conservative whip-cracker and all around dynamic personality has decided that nobody was allowed to watch or record an unedited, highly promoted TWIT event for posterity.  Even if it was covered by Creative Commons.

Thanks for the copyright strike!  Karma's a bitch and apparently so are you my dear.  

In the immortal words of Han Solo I say this...."Laugh it up, Fuzzball.."

Sorry, but when faced with Donald Trump type tactics I lose my objectivity....

Here's the link to the "big" event.  TWIT moves...

The DE-Evolution of TWIT

4 Days....

You Have 4 days (assuming you care) to enjoy the last few hours of the TWIT you knew.  Starting June 1st TWIT is changing the rules.

"...we have recently decided to make a few changes that are going to affect our live audience.

Part of this is the TWiT chat room, which offers direct access to our hosts and guests. Our volunteer moderators have always been diligent [AKA draconian...] in keeping the chat on topic and not letting a few troublemakers [non-fanboys] derail the discussion. But it's gotten to where moderating the chat and people's frustrations with that have become a distraction..." insideTWIT 5/27/15

You heard that right.  Gone will be the live chat room and with it a shakeup of the schedule (again) that will preclude the goings on behind the curtain that faithful viewers have come to expect. 

"This level of behind-the-scenes access also has another serious downside: Not everyone wants to spend their working hours under a microscope." inside TWIT 5/27/15

Uh, if you don't like people watching you then why are you working in a broadcast medium?

I've said before that the turning tide against TWIT likely came about because we saw too much of the sausage being made.  A privilege that showed us the stark contrast between who we thought we knew and who they really were.  The episodes of  sometimes callous and often creepy behavior were there for all to see free of any video editor's sanitizing.  Episodes of which Laporte frequently played a starring role.    

That can have an effect over time...

Most of us came to the network with a longing for what we'd lost when TechTV left the airwaves.  We missed the warm and friendly Laporte and co. solving all our techie woes.  It was with a gentle hand and a kind word that TechTV could console our geeky insecurities with the affirmation of, "It's not your fault!"

It was the first time that anyone bothered to embrace the geeks.  That guy on your TV actually knew what he was talking about without relying on the teleprompter for the answers.  He was one of us...

But perhaps that was just the naiveté  of someone who believed that anything they saw in a heavily scripted TV show could reflect the reality of its hosts.  It was a TV network after all albeit a small one.

It's a rare celebrity whose personality matches their public persona.  Sadly, that truth was evidenced by simply watching TWIT the past few years.  Many fans went from disillusionment to outright hatred of Laporte when the family friendly teddy bear of tech appeared to be anything but.

"The term "troll" gets thrown around a lot. We get it: it's the Internet, and trolls, snarkiness, and differing opinions come with the territory. But it seriously crosses a line when it becomes targeted harassment, cyberstalking...

" inside TWIT 5/27/15

Increasingly anyone with a modicum of intelligence would soon realize that despite claims to the contrary, TWIT was becoming less about the fans and more about the product.  A product based on a facade with Laporte plastered on it like Orville Redenbacher on a box of microwave popcorn.

Speaking of popcorn.  We've born witness to a network whose advertising used to be dominated by the likes of Ting and IFIXit now pushing mattresses and mail order gourmet whose only claim to tech is a website.

If the technology marketplace doesn't believe in what TWIT's doing why should anyone else?  Where are the Lenovo, HP, Apple and Microsoft ads?  You'd think the de facto "President of the Internet" would have tech companies beating down his door to buy advertising.

But Laporte claims there's a higher standard at play.  Apparently one that values shaving kits and granola bars over tech.

Perhaps the best evidence of the impending doom of TWIT comes with an ever increasing paranoia...

" As some of you may know, we received a bomb threat a few weeks ago--and this isn't the first, second, or even third instance of the sort that we've had to deal with. 

We've also had people show up at our house, we've received threatening phone calls and emails, had our comings and goings tracked, been doxxed, and had our personal information distributed. This isn't limited to our hosts: our guests, mods, staff, families, and sponsors have also been the targets of these threats and abuse."

and...

" ...there are threats of violence--especially when your children are in the crosshairs. "Trolling" you can ignore, "stalking" is a different matter.

We take all of this very seriously. Being a target is scary and emotionally trying in a way that I wouldn't wish on anyone--and even more so when your friends and family are put at risk. We ask that you please respect any safeguards we must put in place as a result. Ultimately, we do believe this will result in a better TWiT experience for all.

" inside TWIT 5/27/15

We've moved from the delusional to the ridiculous.  TWIT has gone from the "CNN of tech" to the Fox News of tech.  

As though somehow criticism is equivalent to some Clear and Present Danger.  Sure, bomb threats happen and so does cyberbullying but everyone knows that if you put yourself out there it comes with the territory. 

I mean c'mon now, has Leo never looked at the comments on any of TWIT's YouTube videos?  Is a down vote now cause for a restraining order?

Or is Laporte finally circling the wagons in a desperate attempt to recapture the glory of his Tech TV days using this "abuse" as an excuse to shield TWIT from criticism.

In the end, we see TWIT moving toward the same "video on demand" model as other podcast providers meaning it's rapidly losing its niche.  

Ask all the former hosts of Revision 3 how well that model worked out for them.

There are far better sources for tech news (Have you seen Elgan?) and tech lifestyle programming out there.  TWIT has simply lost too much talent to survive on its content alone.

When the end finally comes for the podcasting network, shed no tears for TWIT. 

Leo's no Ben Kenobi and these are definitely not the droids you were looking for...

TWIT: Say goodbye to being social

...and the hits keep comin!

I'm starting to feel like a gossip columnist but it's an occupational hazard when one follows the sinusoidal wave of chaos that TWIT appears to be lately.

While the bulk of TWIT programming has soldiered on with little change since my last article, when changes do happen they can be dramatic.

Take for instance the latest installment of Lisa Kentzell's "Changes at TWIT" found on the TWIT.TV home page and perhaps updated a bit too frequently.  

In it we find out:

• ·         OMGCraft is moving off the network
• ·         RedditUp is on hiatus
• ·         Marketing Mavericks is getting a new time slot (again)
• ·         The Social Hour is cancelled

Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment and deal with the less weighty of our little punch list.

OMGCraft:

While OMGCraft's appeal was admittedly niche, it was arguably a better show than say "Marketing Mavericks" with more of a following if it's companion YouTube channel is any indicator.  

Considering what the show started out as and what it became after joining TWIT's "official" lineup it's understandable that host Chad "OMGChad" Johnson would choose to take it off network.  If it returns to the more freeform format of its TWIT "beta" days it should do well for Johnson and I honestly hope that comes to pass.

RedditUP:

While mildly entertaining I never quite understood the point of this show.  Co-hosted by Sarah Lane and Chad Johnson, It covered the happenings of the social network that isn't, specifically Reddit.  While Lane and Johnson did their best,  the show was the equivalent of somebody building a podcast around their twitter feed. 

But at least it wasn't...

Marketing Mavericks:

So the wildly successful (that's sarcasm folks) marketing podcast is getting moved to another time slot, again.  This is the TWIT podcast that introduces viewers to those giants of industry that brought the world opt-out spam, singing chickens and pop-up ads.  

Considering the far more "niche" OMGCraft podcast consistently produces episodes that can crest 20,000 views on its associated YouTube channel, Marketing Mavericks by comparison struggles to reach 50.  Why this show continues while other more popular examples regularly get the boot is a continuing mystery.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room...

The Social Hour:

"...We are also retiring The Social Hour. Originally called net@night, it is one of our longest-running netcasts, starting when “social media” was still in its infancy. As the landscape has matured and trends have shifted towards apps, we feel that social media coverage is now a part of almost every show on our network..."

This one is almost on par with Tom Merritt leaving...

While admittedly "The Social Hour" at times seemed more like an hour spent with a couple of chattering valley girls, the content was nonetheless relevant to its audience.  With no social media rock left unturned even those with a passing interest could find something of use. 

Considering the strict adherence Laporte and Kentzell demand of TWIT shows to be profitable, it's longevity could only be a result of its popularity with viewers...right?

It's abrupt departure is likely more significant than it may seem on the surface.

The Social Hour debuted on March 30, 2011 picking up where its TWIT predecessor "Net@night" had left off with host Amber MacArthur and Sarah Lane taking over co-host duties from Laporte.  Meaning that some incarnation of the show had continuously ran for nearly 9 years on the TWIT network before being deemed "redundant."

The decision was apparently made within the last week as no indication of the show's cancellation was indicated during the most recent episode that found Lane closing with, "We will see you next week."

Apparently not Sarah...

There was no episode of "The Social Hour" (not even a rerun) during its normal timeslot this week making the hour long void between "Know How" and "Coding 101" conspicuously present. 

Even the show's icon had been moved to the "retired shows" section of the twit.tv website.  A small but powerful statement as most retired shows have historically remained in the "current shows" lineup for at least a month.

The justification, " ...we feel that social media coverage is now a part of almost every show on our network..." plays to the supposed redundancy of content.  Yet TWIT still maintains not one but 3 shows based on the Apple Ecosystem with Macbreak weekly frequently rehashing content from Ipad Today, I5 for the Iphone not to mention This Week in Tech.

And what of the lackluster Tech News Today (TNT)?  Are we to infer that because a topic is covered that any other presentation is considered redundant as well?

Then we must conclude that other TWIT shows like Windows Weekly, Security Now, This Week in Tech and a host of others that regularly cover the same content as TNT are also on the chopping block.

It seems a double standard is at play here...

Perhaps this is part of a grand plan to eliminate any show on the TWIT network that may threaten the relevance of the news department. 

Although I don't see how that's possible considering the lack of improvement in Elgan's performance on TNT after 9 months.   TNT is nowhere to be found on the Itunes top 40 tech podcasts.  Which begs the question, if TNT isn't popular any more and isn't making enough money for TWIT because of it then isn't TNT itself "redundant?"

If we apply the same standard to TNT as has been brought to bear on other TWIT shows that have been cancelled then TNT must itself be discontinued.      

Don't hold your breath...

Kentzell has stated in the past that her goal was to make TWIT less dependent on Laporte's persona and allow him more personal time away from the network.  Truth be told, by and large he has backed away from all but the core TWIT shows.  In that respect she's succeeded but even a cursory examination of Laporte's demeanor over the past year suggests that the changes may not have yielded the expected results.

Watch any recent podcast of "The Tech Guy," Laporte's syndicated radio show, and frequently the lovable teddy bear of tech is instead curt and irritable.  For example, a recent caller to the show found themselves on the receiving end of the "dump button" because Laporte was unhappy with the pace of the caller's question and later justified the action by saying the caller, "just wanted a free phone."  

It's not an isolated incident either...

Even Laporte's guests aren't immune as they're often talked over or cut off mid sentence regardless of the proximity of a commercial break.  It's almost as though Laporte is in a race to the finish of every show and would rather be somewhere else.

It's likely the result of stress but unfortunately it appears that even indulging in the recreation that only Laporte's wealth can bring still can't alleviate it.

For his own sake, perhaps Laporte should consider just leaving things be at TWIT for awhile. 

TWIT without NFSW, yet another sign?

I suppose this is going to become a series and I hate that, here's why...

There's already enough negativity in the world and I'm not happy to add to it but neither can I sit idly by while good intentions wend their way toward hell undocumented.

So I might as well keep tabs on the house that Leo built and see if forecasts of its eventual demise are the stuff of insight or foolishness. 

In the intervening weeks since the departure of Tom Merritt and the fallout that resulted, TWIT has continued a now familiar trend of upheaval. 

Mike Elgan continues as the host and driving force behind the revamped Tech News Today but absent is holdover from the Merritt era, Sarah Lane, as co-host.  She's now officially taken over full time duties 4 days a week for the new Tech News Tonight(TN2.)  It's entirely possible that Lane was paired with Elgan early on to ease the transition to his era of TNT but was never intended as a permanent association.  Of course that's just supposition.

Considering the suggestion of  tensions early on between the 2 hosts (see the earlier article) and this latest merry-go-round of hosting changes, it's not an unreasonable conclusion. 

 On the February 19th Inside TWIT recording (see below) it was announced that a search for a new co-host to join Elgan was underway.  There was no mention of any further participation of Lane in the morning TNT podcast.

The decision to change the news component of TWIT is still questionable borne out by the absence of TNT on any recent iTunes top 10 podcast list since the format change.  Tom Merritt's Daily Tech News Show (DTNS) by  comparison is consistently in the top 10.  The only TWIT podcasts still ranking in the top 10 on iTunes are hosted by Laporte including the long running This Week in Tech, MacBreak Weekly and Security Now programs.  That would suggest that personality is a more critical component of successful podcasting than pure content.

If that were the end of it there wouldn't be much need for another article but this week brought another not altogether unexpected but still surprising turn of events.

NSFW, TWIT's raucous, unbridled, freeform comedy program hosted by Brian Brushwood (ScamSchool) and Justin Robert Young (Night Attack) announced its farewell episode on TWIT this week.

In the February 18th episode, Hosts Brushwood and Young were emphatic in their praise to TWIT for nurturing NSFW for over 4 years.  Still their reason for leaving was stated as "Not wanting to hurt the network" due to content incompatible with an increasingly overheated "family friendly" and "CNN of Tech" focus. 

While Both Brushwood and Young's popularity have grown well beyond NSFW, the show still provides a hub for their related endeavors .   As such it will continue under a new moniker, "Night Attack" where unrestricted and uncensored content are expected to flow far more freely than would be possible under the TWIT umbrella.

 The new show will be financially supported on a subscription basis via Patreon which is a crowd sourced funding mechanism for the arts.  Both Brushwood and Merritt have found success with the service which currently supports Merritt's "Daily Tech News Show" not to mention the cord cutter show, "CordKillers"  which is a collaborative effort with Brushwood.  This will be the third show to leave the TWIT network only to be recreated independent of the TWIT influence.

Live streaming of "Night Attack" will be streamed via Diamondclub.tv as well as released in podcast form to other networks such as alphageekradio.com.

The issue nobody dares talk about, however, is that NSFW functioned as a kind of release valve for TWIT's otherwise straight-laced programming.  Whether you enjoyed the content or not the simple fact remains that many avid fans of other TWIT shows would frequently make their way to the #unfiltered section of the TWIT chatrooms when NSFW was recording.  Once there, fans could break free of the often draconian moderators in other TWIT chatrooms and uninhibitedly interact with the hosts.   A feature not enjoyed and frequently criticized for its absence on TWIT.

In the February 19th "Inside TWIT" Both Laporte and CEO Lisa Kentzell repeatedly reminded viewers that NSFW wasn't "cancelled" and left of their own volition echoing the sentiments of Young and Brushwood the night before.  That was followed by a discussion concerning the latest TWIT branded swag designs.   Increasingly it seems "Inside TWIT" is more concerned about marketing paraphernalia than the direction of the network.

This leads me to what I believe to be the ultimate endgame for the TWIT network.  That being to position it less as community driven resource and more as a "brand" to be traded on.  For many fans, that's a betrayal of what they believed to beTWIT's vision and the reason they supported it so fiercely while others failed.

However, once the brand surpasses the content, TWIT  and its increasingly "vanilla" programming will become little more than a commodity to be traded and ultimately sold to the highest bidder.  Much like ZDTV and TECHTV that followed it.

We seem to be moving that direction but only time will tell.  The popularity of former hosts has to be a bitter pill for Laporte as he grudgingly admits their post TWIT success.   An event that's been happening with such regularity that such announcements have become as routine as a form letter.  

There's no doubt that TWIT is an incubator for fledgling Internet stardom and there's no lack of examples that have benefitted from Laporte's tutelage.  Unfortunately, much like professional sports teams in Arizona, it seems that's all it will ever be as talent continues its exodus to greener pastures in the face of an uncertain future.

UPDATE:   I found a working video link to NFSW 218!  Check it out below!

NFSW show 218 ...

Has TWIT finally thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

I'm not sure what's going on at Leo Laporte's TWIT network but it seems change is in the air again.  This time, however, it seems it's more than a minor schedule shakeup. 

2013 has seen a number of changes at TWIT the most obvious of which is Laporte's handoff of hosting duties on shows including "Know How" and the relatively new "This Week in YouTube" and next year "The Giz Wiz."  The year has also seen an increasing presence of Father Robert Ballecer hosting the new "This Week in Enterprise Tech" as well as co-hosting "Know How" with Iyaz Akhtar.  (Update: Akhtar has since left TWIT for CNET)

Another new arrival, Chad Johnson, originally showed up as a board operator for the ill fated "Game on!" and has been slowly groomed for host and producer duties over the past year.  He now produces "This Week in Tech" and hosts "OMGcraft" as well as co-hosting "This Week in YouTube" with Lamarr Wilson. (Update: The show has been put on hiatus) Johnson will be picking up hosting duties for "The Giz Wiz" alongside Dick DeBartolo.

Laporte has long said he wants the network to be less reliant on his star power but in the process it seems the programming has been in a constant state of upheaval because of it. 

That's somewhat understandable.  After all, a broadcaster devoted to technology subjects has to stay as nimble as the newsmakers they cover.  Change is part of the DNA but lately it seems to be a self-serving entity at TWIT.

It all makes me wonder if the whole exercise has TWIT throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Of course I'm talking about the imminent departure of one of the few hosts on TWIT capable of shepherding the network toward Laporte's vision of a self sustaining entity without his presence.

Tom Merritt will be leaving the TWIT network at the end of the year.  With him goes the popular show "Framerate" he co-hosts with former "Game On!" and "NSFW" host Brian Brushwood. 

Merritt, the host and creator of the popular and award winning "Tech News Today" who was once referred to as "Leo 2" is by far the most professional and popular of any of the personalities on the network.  Unfortunately, the writing was likely already on the wall over a year earlier.  I'll get to why I say that in a minute...

On a posting on the "Inside TWIT" blog Laporte wrote,

 "After some soul searching, I've decided that we do need an in-studio anchor for Tech News Today, and a News Director who can help us build the kind of organization you can count on for authoritative tech news and information."

At the beginning of 2013 Merritt was forced to move to Los Angeles when his wife and former producer of the "This Week in Tech" podcast accepted a position with Google.  That change dictated Merritt's appearances on TWIT be "phoned in" instead of in studio.

Laporte has often said that he prefers in-studio hosts and his investment in a million dollar production facility supports that.  Still, in the new media, location should have little to do with the quality of the content.  It would seem on this point, Laporte has conflicting visions.

More than half of TWIT shows rely on hosts connecting in via Skype but Merritt's former status of TWIT heir apparent became diminished by it.  As early as June 2012 Merritt became less of a fixture with Laporte when Laporte began solo hosting of "Triangulation" saying that the "Tri" in triangulation was the guest, Leo and the chat room.

Around the same time "Fourcast," Tom Merritt and Scott Johnson's (frogpants.com) quirky techno-clairvoyance hour, found itself cancelled.  Although both hosts claimed declining viewership (a death knell to any TWIT show) the timing seemed less than coincidental.

The changes were subtle but there was no doubt that either Laporte or Merritt (or both) began distancing themselves from the other as Merritt's move to Los Angeles grew closer.  As they say, long distance relationships rarely work out and 400 miles is a pretty long distance.  As TWIT heir apparent it would be unacceptable for Merritt to oversee daily operations with only skype and a dropcam to survey the minions.

Fast forward to the present...

With the now imminent departure of Merritt the question of who would fill the void needed an answer.  It came with a second posting on the Inside TWIT blog,

"We are pleased to announce that Silicon Valley technology journalist Mike Elgan has joined TWiT as our News Director and the Lead Anchor of our daily news netcast, Tech News Today (starting January 2, 2014).

His hiring is part of a planned 2014 transformation and expansion of TWiT’s News Division, which includes our Breaking News coverage, as well as the launch of our new evening news show Tech News 2Night on January 13, 2014."

Elgan is a frequent guest pundit on Laporte's "This Week In Tech" podcast as well as other shows such as "MacBreak Weekly."  While his news credentials surpass those of the TWIT staff, his previous appearances on TWIT have projected anything but an affable presence.   

A no-nonsense and sometimes abrasive personality that seems to run counter to TWIT's culture.  He often exhibits a dismissive tone to those that he disagrees with.  As a news director those characteristics may serve him well but as a host?

The premise of expanding the news component of TWIT is also questionable.  Considering the bulk of tech news found around the Internet is comprised largely of editorials scraped from other outlets and fluff riddled press releases written by marketing departments, it seems an exercise in redundancy to have even more of the same on a daily basis. 

Many of the more targeted tech shows on TWIT already include topical news on their subject, the addition of a tertiary presentation seems unnecessary.

Unless Elgan's expanded news department will field journalists collecting actual news instead of just hipster personalities parroting information his selection seems like overkill. 

It wouldn't be surprising to see the departure of other popular TWIT personalities over the next year as a result of the change.  Elgan is a hard news man, most TWIT hosts are not. (Update:Akhtar left TNT and TWIT)

Merritt is a popular personality outside of the TWIT arena and it's likely his future pursuits will be fruitful if the outpouring of support from his fans is any indication.  Many of which vow to abandon TWIT precisely because he won't be there.

Fans of Leo, Tom or any other of the TWIT hosts know full well that the information provided can be obtained in triplicate from multitudes of sources.  People chose to be informed by those they feel most comfortable with.  The news may be the same all over but a Fox news viewer won't easily switch to getting his content from MSNBC. 

It's far less certain what the future holds for TWIT with such radical changes.  Keeping a very fickle online audience engaged in your content is difficult enough under the best of circumstances.  Alienate them at your own peril.

History is peppered with brilliant concepts ultimately brought to fruition by someone other than their creators.  It's the reason why most company founders rarely hold the reigns after their company goes public.  Innovators are all about advancing the concept but not necessarily the best candidates to handle the execution.

Now that the prototype has been created, perhaps it's time for someone other than TWIT to bring the dream to reality.

New Media is older than you think - Part 2

YouTube is perhaps the most blatant example of the "New Media" hypocrisy. Their motto is "Broadcast Yourself" although it's hard to find on their webpage anymore.  Here's their current claimed reason for being...

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

The real truth is that only thing YouTube cares about since the Google acquisition is becoming the Internet equivalent of NBC. They've invested a few million in a Los Angeles production studio called the "Creation Space" supposedly to support the YouTube community.  What you find in the small print, however, is that you don't get to use it unless you've been "invited."    

To get that golden ticket you need to  have at least 300,000 average views with the first crop of "invitees" being closer to a half million or more.  Check out the bulk of the channels and  you're going to find a lot of crossover from old media interests, entertainment figures and those with a popular following elsewhere. 

Sorry guys, your chances of getting in on the new digs is pretty slim with videos of your new kittens produced with Windows Movie Maker.

By the way, a common thread among successful YouTube channels is a partnership agreement with an even  larger channel. 

Oh yeah, and being a pop star with a record company backing the production of your new "Internet only" video wouldn't hurt either.

So what exactly is this New Media then?  A shortcut for old media billionaires to make more money by spending less on production?

Seems that way which means supporting your tiny channel is not their focus.  In fact since the Google acquisition, the service has become increasingly hostile to small content creators.  The recommendation is to sign up with bigger partners if you want to increase your views. 

That means revenue sharing or basically paying the bigger partner a percentage of your monetized views on top of YouTube's normal cut.  Kind of like a pyramid scheme.  Paying for views, by the way, is something YouTube actively discourages anywhere but partner agreements.  They can't turn a profit outside that structure so they make sure you don't either.

The only thing YouTube is nurturing is its own fortunes.  Don't expect to get a call to reserve your slot in the "Creation Space" if you're not in the less than 1% of YouTubers able to live off your partner income.  It's not going to happen for smaller channels simply because their take isn't lucrative enough for them.

YouTube will reap millions from its relatively paltry investment in facilities and you're going to pay for it with deeper cuts into your monetization.  Even if you never get to use it.  So much for their philanthropic motives.

Why?  Simple, it's a corporate interest and  you're just a consumer of their product.  Your "partner" status just gives them license to hijack your content for their own ends with minimal benefit for you.  So while you spend hours hoping that all that slaving over the perfect upload will go viral, know that YouTube has your back.  Well at least so long as they can turn a profit on you.  Oh yeah and you don't do anything to threaten the sensibilities of their advertisers or even suggest the possibility of a copyright infringement. 

Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst gets them pulled down.

Sound familiar?  It's the same dynamic that got your favorite show kicked off of network TV and drove innovative cable networks like TechTV into the ground. 

So dry your tears New Media pundits, it's the same old crap in a new package.  Nothing's really changed as the same "old media" gatekeepers are still collecting the tolls.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from engaging in this "New Media" just don't believe everything you hear about it.  It's definitely fun but it's far from free and not as lucrative as it seems so don't quit your day job.   

You can start a blog, post hundreds of videos on YouTube and spam all your Facebook friends with them  and still not earn a dime.  Without the backing of the gatekeepers you may as well post your blogs on telephone poles.  Just remember the "New Media" isn't all that new so take it with a grain of salt.  Most of the hype you're hearing is the same kind of noise you get from an "Internet Millions" infomercial. 

              

New Media is older than you think - Part 1

The Internet is delusional. More precisely, people who see it as something other than a shill for corporate interests are delusional. I suppose that means I'm raining on somebody's parade but then again, I've never thought Felicia Day was that big of a deal. The promise of "New Media" was broken the day the term was coined.

So it should be no surprise when you suddenly find your creative expression cut short by some mysterious mechanism that's denied your 15 minutes of fame.

 I've watched a lot of misty eyed podcast pundits proclaiming the impending doom of the "old" media model and the rise of the "New Media" model. They postulate on how all those silly old men in their corporate towers are powerless to prevent the tidal wave of content in this brave new media world. Surely the tables are turning and the rise of entertainment by mob rule will conquer the day.

They fondly recall short lived television shows that to their minds were unfairly struck down only to find rebirth in a new medium. A feat not possible without the promise of the... Internet!

 I guess they forgot about that whole thing with VCR's and DVD box sets. Oh yeah, and the fact that 90% of television programming couldn't draw 1000 views in a YouTube channel anyway. Worse, YouTube probably wouldn't let them monetize it due to some BS about "commercial use rights".
What they fail to mention is that the "rebirth" found its conception with an sympathetic ear who had control of the content. And why not, they had nothing to lose by offering up these "lost gems" on the web. All the better if they could squeeze a few more bucks out that old crap too.

So it goes with most of the New Media superstars as well. Most of whom started with more than just a laptop and a webcam.

People like to point to podcasting and YouTube as the best examples of new media. Look behind the curtains of the most popular "visionary" media offerings, however, and you find a deep bench of old media. 

Take the example of Leo Laporte's TWIT netcast (podcast) network. Built on decades of broadcast experience on radio and television as America's favorite tech pundit, Laporte's TWIT it is the wet dream of anyone with a YouTube channel. With over 20 shows built around technology related topics from social media to law it's frequently held up as the example of successful "New Media."

The part that gets glossed over is that without Laporte's "Old Media" gravitas and a few handpicked hosts from his TechTV days, TWIT would be just another hobbyist channel on YouTube. Not surprisingly, the collective TWIT resume is heavy in traditional media as well as technology luminaries like Steve Gibson, Bob Heil and Alex Lindsay. Not exactly the kind of talent easily accessible to the average podcaster trying to make their way in the world.

There's nothing wrong with leveraging your strengths but you can't hold TWIT up as a pure example of New Media precisely because of them. It's existence is entirely reliant on leveraging old media concepts if not its on-air personalities.

I mean, really now, TWIT would literally have to start airing "This week in gym socks" and "The Social Terrorist Today" to fail with their talent lineup.

While tightly controlled, TWIT still relies on advertising and audience metrics for a revenue stream. Programming that doesn't meet a revenue threshold no matter how popular can find itself cancelled, which isn't exactly a new idea. We're still being asked to vote with our wallets instead of our interests. Even popular hosts organically grown from this "New Media" that run afoul of "old media" hierarchies can quickly find themselves out on the cold.

Perhaps the most vivid example was the ousting of a rising star on the TWIT network in 2011. Erik Lanigan came fresh out of college and worked for TWIT as an editor before beginning the rise to the ranks of a show host after Laporte recognized his talent. Toward the end he gained a loyal following and was reportedly being groomed to substitute for Laporte on his weekend "Tech Guy" syndicated radio show.

From available information Lanigan wasn't receiving adequate support for his fledgling overnight show not to mention a paycheck in general. It culminated in a chat conversation where he admitted as much. Viewers of the live broadcast were none the wiser, however, with even Laporte struggling to find anything derogatory in the show's recorded video. It appears Lanigans sin, was to admit that he wasn't being fairly treated by TWIT management to chatroom friends.

Laporte's commentary on the subject was probably the most emblematic of old media icons when in response to questions about Lanigan's firing he said, "I had to kiss a lot of butt in the first 20 years, that's why I'm here...You kiss butt in media for a long ass time"

Isn't this the core issue of old media that the New Media is supposed to correct? Isn't the rule that the quality of the content should supersede ego or advertiser metric? So the old maxim of brown nosing to the top is part of the new revolution in media? It calls into question if New Media outlets are really the incubators of fresh ideas or just a new medium for the old guard to monetize.

Part 2

                  

Taking the tech pundits to task

If you're at all like me you'll find yourself regularly sampling the tech podcast offerings from places like TWIT, Revision 3 and whatever strikes your fancy on YouTube.  Being interested in tech not to mention making a living from it, I'm an obvious part of the target audience. 

If you've read any of my previous articles it's likely I may seem a bit, "snarky" in my views.  It's not that I'm some disagreeable "troll" rather I'm just annoyed at the sheer volume of BS that comes out of the tech punditry.  It seems the Internet is a haven for insecure egomaniacs with just enough personality to attract a following.  There's so much of it that it's hard to separate real content from all the parroted noise and groundless opinion.

The worst offenders are in the tech "news" sphere.

It's good to keep abreast of new developments but I've learned to take tech news with a grain of salt.  Don't expect to find much objectivity in podcasts even if the presenters profess high minded, journalistic ideals.  They don't exist simply because they can't.  The topic of discussion won't allow it. 

Keep in mind that most tech journalism is based less on factual information than press releases and personal opinion.  The sad truth is that every tech podcast is little more than a poorly researched editorial.  The dearth of real information and an imagined "nanosecond" news cycle has prevented anything resembling journalism.

No matter how professional the delivery, the minute they start quoting some article from Ars Technica or The Verge it's no longer journalism but rather an op-ed piece.  Journalism requires tracking down real sources and verifying a story before reporting it.  Anything less is just parroting somebody else's information.

This is the trap many podcasters fall in to, especially the ones that make a good living at it.  Pick a tech news podcast and you'll undoubtedly find 3 or 4 pundits tossing topics around the set and playing journalist.  That's all they're doing by the way, playing.  Their opinion is no more valuable than the guy in the Blue shirt at Best Buy.  And why not? Their information comes from the same place, a carefully prepared marketing brief designed to be easily digested and regurgitated. 

It's not that an opinion is a bad thing so long as you have a foundation of knowledge from which to form it. 

Most pundits don't and it drives me nuts.  

I don't cut any slack to the so-called tech "veterans" either.  Just because you've been practicing a pseudo-journalistic binge and purge for decades doesn't make your information any more valuable.  If in the course of your reporting your viewpoint becomes the most critical component of the story, you're of no use to me.  Op-Ed pieces get a pass on this but you have to make it clear that's all it is right up front instead of passing it off as news.

Look,  nobody cares about your opinion on the merits of replaceable CPU's on Intel motherboards if your experience with CPU's is limited to reading copy off your MacBook Air.  I'd also rather not hear about "value" from someone with a six figure income.  I'm sorry but whether you spend your vacation in Paris or Greece for the holidays is not a dilemma your viewers would identify with. 

I understand why this happens, though.

Let's face it, most people in the technology industry (no pundits allowed here) have the personalities of a brick.  That doesn't make for an interesting podcast unless you're in dire need of a cure for insomnia.

It's the same on the cable news networks where we suffer the glittering "personalities" fronting seriously named news "programming" like "The Situation Room" or "On the record".  Devotees undoubtedly care more about the presenter's Facebook page than the veracity of the "news" being reported on any given day.

In a world that tolerates an ever decreasing attention span it's really no surprise.  30 second sound bites are even too long now, unless we can use part of it as a ringtone.

They drone on and on and the longer they're in the "biz" the more convinced they become of their legitimacy.  When they finally reach the exalted ranks of "the punditry" their egos begin to trump the value of their reporting.  They are the geek equivalent of rock stars living the in the bubble of their hipster fantasy, drunk on their own popularity. 

Oh but when they fall...

And they will. 

Cronkite, Murrow and Winchell are the standard by which journalistic integrity will be measured for at least the next century.  Nobody will ever hold up Leeza Gibbons in the same light.

Yes, you've likely already guessed where I'm going with this. I am in fact saying that most tech podcasters are no more relevant than Leeza Gibbons.  You're not as attractive either.  When the fickle tastes of the Internet no longer have use for you, your day if not your "career" is over.

Perhaps it's wiser to be more Cronkite than Felicia Day.  At least reserve your "enlightened" opinion for those topics in which you're really enlightened.

If you do a podcast on social networking and you actually use it, your information is relevant.  If, however, you do the same podcast and offer "expert" commentary on the merits of fuel injection over carburetion you're just polluting the topic. 

Remember the basic tenet of any presentation, consider your audience first.  We're a fickle bunch...