Bad timing that Exxon quarterly profit announcement. Just 11 days before the elections. Exxon PR left a reporter from ABC standing outside their Houston headquarters to call in for a phone interview. There response to the massive profits was a mix of embarrassment and confusion. And the media plays along. Why are gas prices going down these past few weeks?

Now we know. Because Exxon... Which sets the prices of the products it sells, knew this was coming.
Let's face it - 10.5 Billion doesn't happen over night. Exxon knew that they were raking in profits. They know what oil costs them, and they know what they charge for it. Sure, that could change - prices could rise, but then they could raise prices. The media is culpable here as well, as they report prices at the pump as if there are somehow magically the result of some marketplace mechanism that doesn't have a human face. It's simply not true.

The thing that is the most startling about this profit number is that the oil companies must have done every accounting trick in the book to try and bring this number down. Postpone income, accelerate expenses, bill every possible cost to the bottom line. So this is the number after they've done every trick in the book.

Its hard not to think about both Bush and Cheney's roots in Big Oil, and the fact that this administration has done nothing to pressure oil companies to reduce prices. And the Democrats haven't said much either. Even the media, which did ton's of Man On The Street stories of outrage when the last quarterly profits were announced seemed to see this as old news. They reported profits with headlines like this one from AP: For Exxon Mobil, Another Gusher
$10.5 Billion Profit For Quarter Second-Largest Ever For A Public Company"

The thing is - unlike other companies, oil profits are actually pretty simple. Oil R&D is all long term investment, planned and budgeted out for many years. Repairs (like that of the Alaskan Oil Pipeline) should likewise be easily projectable. And unlike other products - demand is pretty much fixed and assured. For example, at McDonalds - if you raised Burger prices from $1.25 to $1.50 you'd lose some sales. So increased prices would also impact sales. Not so for gas. Why? Because people still need to get to work, or fly, or have Fed Ex deliver a package. So people just pay the price. Sure - vacation travel may be impacted a bit - but its still cheeper to drive than fly.

If you ran a company that provided an essential service, and increasing prices had no impact on sales or demand - why not raise prices and provide the profits to your stockholders?

In 2004 - standing on the floor of the Fleet Center in Boston... I was exhausted. After working for weeks straight without a break... I was directing 5 camera crews at the Democratic National Convention. The film was called "Inside The Bubble", and we'd been exactly there, inside the Kerry Campaign. On the planes, buses, and in the hotels with the traveling staff.

So in Boston - Kerry was really the only thing on my mind.

In the background - people came and went from the podium. Speeches were speechified. Signs were waved. Politicians got face time. But everyone knew it was all the pre-game. Only Kerry would count.

I wasn't even on the floor when it happened. Tuesday July 27th. I was out in the hall. And then I heard a buzz. A rumble. Something was - happening. The building started to vibrate. And I was drawn into the already packed hall. There was a man on the stage, and I'm embarrassed to say that I had no idea who he was. Tall and thin, almost gangly like a teenage boy. He was voice cut through the boomy room and the bad acoustics. No one was talking, No one was on their cell phone.

I remember the words:

"If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Wow. Words that cut through a year of political rhetoric. Words that looked back and looked forwards. Words that embraced Arabs Americans (and that from a guy named Obama - sounds like Osama). There was only one moment like this at the DNC in 2004. One absolutely authentic moment. A moment of political courage and passion. A moment that 'connected' - at least with me. It was, my friends tell me, just like Clinton's rousing nominating speech in 1988. A moment when a new start simply arrives and you know it.

Obama continued to speak....

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America."

The speech was jolt of energy in an otherwise stage-managed event. John Kerry "Reported for Duty" - a bizarre and poll-driven attempt to remind us that he was more of a military man than the guy who is the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Months later - after we'd come out of our funk and begun to re-engage - I was invited to meet with Mr. Obama along with a handful of New Yorkers. It was a fundraiser for his run for the Senate in Illinois. But didn't give a damn about Illinois. I wanted to get a chance to meet the man who I'd seen in Boston. I wanted to know if it was a fluke or if he was as clear thinking and passionate in a small room as he was on stage at the Fleet Center. I don't remember what we talked about. I do remember talking with him, and he being engaged and looking me in the eye, and not glancing over my shoulder to see who was working their way up to him. It was in person, one on one, as galvanizing as that day in July 2004. And it was real. So when Barack Obama says that he's considering a run for the White House, that's a very good thing. For the Party, for the Country, and for the planet. He may run, he may win. He may do neither. But he reminded me to re-watch his speech from 2004... and he reminded me: If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

He's a welcome addition to the conversation. And I'm proud to have shaken his hand.

Here, watch the speech for yourself.

In 2004 - standing on the floor of the Fleet Center in Boston... I was exhausted. After working for weeks straight without a break... I was directing 5 camera crews at the Democratic National Convention. The film was called "Inside The Bubble", and we'd been exactly there, inside the Kerry Campaign. On the planes, buses, and in the hotels with the traveling staff.

So in Boston - Kerry was really the only thing on my mind.

In the background - people came and went from the podium. Speeches were speechified. Signs were waved. Politicians got face time. But everyone knew it was all the pre-game. Only Kerry would count.

I wasn't even on the floor when it happened. Tuesday July 27th. I was out in the hall. And then I heard a buzz. A rumble. Something was - happening. The building started to vibrate. And I was drawn into the already packed hall. There was a man on the stage, and I'm embarrassed to say that I had no idea who he was. Tall and thin, almost gangly like a teenage boy. He was voice cut through the boomy room and the bad acoustics. No one was talking, No one was on their cell phone.

I remember the words:

"If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Wow. Words that cut through a year of political rhetoric. Words that looked back and looked forwards. Words that embraced Arabs Americans (and that from a guy named Obama - sounds like Osama). There was only one moment like this at the DNC in 2004. One absolutely authentic moment. A moment of political courage and passion. A moment that 'connected' - at least with me. It was, my friends tell me, just like Clinton's rousing nominating speech in 1988. A moment when a new start simply arrives and you know it.

Obama continued to speak....

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America."
The speech was jolt of energy in an otherwise stage-managed event. John Kerry "Reported for Duty" - a bizarre and poll-driven attempt to remind us that he was more of a military man than the guy who is the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Months later - after we'd come out of our funk and begun to re-engage - I was invited to meet with Mr. Obama along with a handful of New Yorkers. It was a fundraiser for his run for the Senate in Illinois. But didn't give a damn about Illinois. I wanted to get a chance to meet the man who I'd seen in Boston. I wanted to know if it was a fluke or if he was as clear thinking and passionate in a small room as he was on stage at the Fleet Center. I don't remember what we talked about. I do remember talking with him, and he being engaged and looking me in the eye, and not glancing over my shoulder to see who was working their way up to him. It was in person, one on one, as galvanizing as that day in July 2004. And it was real. So when Barack Obama says that he's considering a run for the White House, that's a very good thing. For the Party, for the Country, and for the planet. He may run, he may win. He may do neither. But he reminded me to re-watch his speech from 2004... and he reminded me: If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

He's a welcome addition to the conversation. And I'm proud to have shaken his hand.

Watch the speech for yourself.

By David Hornik on October 22, 2006 11:52 PM / http://ventureblog.com/

Chris Anderson Strikes Again: The Economy of Abundance
By David Hornik on October 22, 2006 11:52 PM | Links In | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Categories: Conferences and Consumer Internet & Media and The Economy & Finance

With great admiration, I have been watching Chris Anderson's book "The Long Tail" hit the New York Times best seller list and dominate the scarce business book shelf space of the brick and mortar bookstore world. The Long Tail is not just a geeky concept for the O'Reilly crowd, it is now a mainstream driver for the Business Week crowd. And while no longer an absolute requirement of every consumer internet venture pitch (and pretty much every enterprise pitch for that matter), the idea of the long tail continues to permeate many, probably most, of the PowerPoint presentations I see on a daily basis. Chris deserves great credit for simplifying and contextualizing a concept that plays such a big role in the evolving connected economy.

Continuing in his role as shirpa of the new economy, Chris has moved on from the Long Tail to a related but distinct idea that he is calling the Economy of Abundance. In a talk he just gave at the PopTech conference (a fantastic event in the unbelievably beautiful but remote town of Camden Maine), Chris described this new economy. The basic idea is that incredible advances in technology have driven the cost of things like transistors, storage, bandwidth, to zero. And when the elements that make up a business are sufficiently abundant as to approach free, companies appropriately should view their businesses differently than when resources were scarce (the Economy of Scarcity). They should use those resources with abandon, without concern for waste. That is the overriding attitude of the Economy of Abundance -- don't do one thing, do it all; don't sell one piece of content, sell it all; don't store one piece of data, store it all. The Economy of Abundance is about doing everything and throwing away the stuff that doesn't work. In the Economy of Abundance you can have it all.

In 1982 I was one of a handful of US students who traveled to the Soviet Union as part of an educational 'exchange'. I remember many things about the trip in the pre-glastnost Russia. First and foremost, I remember stepping off the bus from the airport and being stunned that there were people walking dogs in Moscow.

Dogs! They had Dogs! As a well educated and reasonably well read college student I was stunned that I had so little in my head to put Russia in context. All I knew was they were a Red Menace, and they were our enemy. Twenty five years later - the world has changed. The Soviet Union is no more. And what is in its place is a confused free market system trying to sort out what kind of society it wants to be.
With this as a backdrop - I went to hear Michael Gorbachev speak in New York last week. I expected a somewhat contrite and reserved man, given the state of the country he once led - and impact that perestroyka and glastnost has had on the population. But instead - something very different happened. For the first forty minutes or so, it was all pretty polite. Pat Mitchell, the President of the Museum of Radio And Television, showed clips from The Cold War - a series she Executive Produced for CNN - and Gorbachev answered questions through a translator. It was all very congenial.

But as we moved from historical to modern days - Gorbachev became more engaged, agitated in fact.

This turned frothy when Mitchell wondered if there was anything Gorbachev regretted - he retold a story about protecting a key cabinet member who should have been replaced. The he said, "much like your President who has trusted advisors who've overstayed their welcome." It was a gentle criticism, but from former head of Soviet Union - it was a powerful condemnation. He then shifted his body from Pat to the audience, his voice rose, and he delivered about a four minute soliloquy about the power of democracy and the importance of freedom as a motivator of people and societies. He became so impassioned he almost drowned out the translator.

It was a moment I'll never forget.

To have the Russian President speaking about democracy with reverence was startling and stirring. But all the more so, given the number of freedoms that we seem willing to allow to be compromised or traded in exchange for a promise of protection from terrorism.

There's a remarkable book about the changing face and shape of The United State "The Untied States of America" by Juan Enriquez. Sitting in the auditorium listening to Gorbachev I couldn't help but think of Enriquez book - and how clearly he made a case for the inevitable change in our country. He doesn't advocate for change, instead he explains in remarkable detail how countries inevitably change their shape as economics and demographics shift in the sand. Clearly Russia is evidence of that - but why do we think we're immune?

There is a shift - and it's not a little thing. Today Apple, the little engine that could announced extraordinary sales numbers. At the same time NBC announced wide ranging cuts in it's prime time and news operations. And the Wall Street Journal reviewed IE7 and proclaimed it - a copy cat of FireFox.
The shift that that's going on is a fundamental one, from large media

companies inventing and inflicting Mass Culture on 'consumers' to a society in which the passive role of 'consumer' is shifted forever into one of 'creator.'
Looking back the Apple advertisement from 1982 seems to have predicted, or at least imagined this moment.

It's hard not to believe that Google's web based suite of software and services will continue to over take Microsoft's desk bound, bloated, and slow Window's environment.

It seems entirely possible that Steve Job's iTV device - when its revealed in January - will forever change the way media is discovered, created, and shared. Worth noting here that Microsoft has had a 3 year head start with the poorly named Windows Media Extender thingy.

And Flash8 (the encoder that makes video on the web a pleasurable experience) seems to have ended the format wars between Microsoft's Windows Media, Apple's Quicktime, and Real Networks RealVideo.

The era of closed systems is coming to an end, and the era of open systems for media makers and audiences is finally here.

This is a wildly significant change, give the role that media plays in our life, our politics, our values, and the way companies try to market to us (remember - we're 'consumers' not 'customers' in current marketing parlance).

I remember the first time I used Google to place a text ad - a service called Google Ad Words that anyone can use with a credit card and a bit of knowledge. It was stunning. Google wouldn't let me use ALL CAPITALS, or an "!" or the word "FREE" - what was clear to me was that Google respected the experience of its searchers more than the few dollars I was willing to spend. It wasn't until I wrote an ad that the Google algorithms found informational (free of hype) that I was even allowed to post it.

In old media world - tv viewers were held captive by their programs and the linearity of programming. Commercials could be inane, or insulting, completely inappropriate. Viewers sat through them. But no longer. Tivo changed that forever.

The shift from MEGA Media to Me Media is already having profound effects on how people interact. YouTube is filled with personal, intimate, profound, and human interactions. People are sharing journey's, restaurant reviews, political rants, and autobiographical diary segments. They are telling each other stories.

So when Bob Wright tells the Wall Street Journal that he is preparing for NBC 2.0 he is admitting that the costs associated with making Mass Media require a mass audience in order to be a business. And its clear that the future doesn't look that inviting to big media. When NBC reacts to this trend by "Having actors do 'character blogs' after each show" the display their fundamental lack of understanding of how the media is changing. Blogs are - first and foremost - about authenticity. Actors can't write for their characters - and fictional characters can't write authentic blogs. That said, NBC has it half right- they acknowledge the shift to a 2.0 world - and they're right to consolidate and focus on shifting their focus to a new Always On world.

What does the future of media look like?

One of the smartest people I know - Yochai Benkler - has a radically different view on media. Yochai has written a number of extraordinary papers, and now a dense but gripping book LINK in which he proclaims the future of media will be "Peer Produced." Simply translated, it means your neighbors and friends will make what you watch. Your Social Network becomes your Media Network.

While at first blush this might seem charming - his vision is far more expansive than that. He says that people create things - not for money - but to fulfill other human needs. Creative needs. The need to express yourself, to be a member of society, to participate, and to have an identity. He says that media (or simply stories) are the thing we all have in common, and the thing we can all make and share. His Peer Produced media vision mirrors the growth and importance of the open source software movement. And at a moment where it appears that FireFox (not Internet Explorer) is likely to be the long term winner in browser wars - Benkler's vision takes on newfound significance.

When Apple released the SE30, and the first lazer printer - the goal was to revolutionize publishing. It did that - without a doubt. But the shift taking place from Peakock to iPod is driven by forces that are far more fundamental. For all of the romanticism lavished on the 'shared experience' of watching televison 'together' - the truth is that Mass Media did more to separate us than to unite us. What we are seeing - I believe - is the rebirth of communities on a human scale. The natural evolution is from passive, big, authoritarian content authorities (networks), to networks of friends, neighbors, co-workers, and enthusiasts.

As more and more people find they have access to the tools to become content creators - we may find the TV is being shut off more and more as people entertain and educate each other.

An open-source media future could have far reaching consequences.

Mikhail Gorbachev - live and in person.

Pat Mitchell - the former President of PBS - is now the President of the Museum of Radio and Television and Radio. But long before she was the head of documentary at CNN, Mitchell was an interviewer. And she hasn't lost her touch.

So when Mitchell is able to sit on the stage for 90 minutes and have a frank and open conversation with Mikhail Gorbachev, it seemed like too good an opportunity to miss.

Mitchell brought Gorbachev onto the stage to a standing ovation.

For the first forty minutes of so, it was all pretty polite. Mitchell showed clips from The Cold War - a series she Exec Produced on CNN - and Gorbachev answered questions through a translator. It was all very congenial.

But as we moved from historical to modern days - Gorbachev became more engaged, agitated in fact.

The moment i'll never forget began when Mitchell asked if there was anything Gorbachev regretted - he retold a story about protecting a key cabinet member who should have been replaced. The he said, "much like your president who has trusted advisors who've overstayed their welcome." It was a gentle criticism, but from former head of Soviet Union - it was a powerful condemnation. He then shifted his body from Pat to the audience, his voice rose, and he delivered about a four minute soliloquy about the power of democracy and the importance of freedom as a motivator of people and societies. He became so impassioned he basically drowned out the translator.

It was a moment i'll never forget.

To have the Russian President speaking about democracy with reverance was startling and stirring. But all the more so, given the number of freedoms that we seem willing to allow to be compromised or traded in exchange for a promise of protection from terrorism.

"So Goes The Nation"

That's the title of a new film that opens this weekend, and is supposed to give viewers insight into the pitch battle the Democrats waged in Ohio in 2004. The film is made by Democrats, and the goal is pretty straight forward. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" (for accuracy: What George Santayana actually wrote in Reason in Common Sense was, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".)

Seems reasonable enough.
Check the box office on Monday and see if Democrats run to face the facts of 2004. My money says the film will flop, and not because it should.

Sitting in the IFC Theatre last Thursday - the film offered a remarkably honest portrayal of what went wrong. And not just with Ohio, but with the Demcrats nationwide. It's easy to blame Bob Shrum, but his name isn't mentioned in the film. In fact Tad Devine and Maryann Cahill get much of the democratic camera time - and Paul Begala... cast as the Loyal opposition gets the starring role. Begala's harshest criticism is directed - strangely enough - at Paris Hilton, who he called "a skinny, slutty bag of bones".

But the stars of Adam Del Deo's film aren't the Democrats - they are the Republicans. Mark McKinnon, chief media advisor to Bush, is perhaps the most candid and disarming. He as much as admits that Popularity and Fear were the two most powerful tools of the campaign.

But in comparing the tenor of the two camps, the organization and focus of the Republicans come through time and time again. In perhaps the most revealing and damning scene in the movie, Del Deo shows both the Democrats' and the Republicans' attempts to convert voters in the so-called 'ground war' in Ohio. It's tempting to think that Del Deo edited the scenes with some agenda, since the Democrats seem so inept and the Republicans so focused and 'on message.' But understanding where the Director comes from, the terrible reality is that Del Deo didn't want to make the Democrats look bad, he had no choice.

This is how the documentary begins to suggest that the last presidential election basically came down to a matter of popularity, an impression validated by none other than Mark McKinnon, chief media advisor to Bush, and Ken Mehlman, chair of the Republican National Committee. You will never again hear this many Republicans admit to Bush using fear to regain control of the White House: running on the only two issues he could, Iraq and gay marriage; appealing to the "primitive" instincts of the heartland (via fear-mongering ad campaigns, including commercials that likened Republicans to wolves); and ingeniously turning everything Kerry said or did against him. From McKinnon's own mouth we are told that the majority of Americans agree with Democrats on many issues, but that the elitism of the party is off-putting to the heartland.

So how broken is the Democratic Party? Well, litteraly 'broke' if you note that the liberal radio network "Air America" filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy yesterday. What happend in Ohio, what happend to Air America, and what will happen in November? For the 11 people who saw the HBO film "Left of the Dial" (as i did) or the 15 people who saw "So Goes The Nation" (me again) the future is pretty bleak.

Is it fair to compare the Chapter 11 filing of Air America Radio with the events in Ohio? I think so. Not because any one commerical endeavor's success or failure is a indicator of anything. But because both events (and both films that chronicle them) drive home the same point. The Democrats are so convinced that they're fighting a battle of ideas that they allow their message to be mangled, often shrill, and in the end simply no fun to listen to. Air America isn't fun for Democrats and it isn't fun for Republicans. It's the political equivalent of nails on a blackboard. Meanwhile, Fox News is snarky, overblown, funny, and mean in that college frat boy kind of way. It's often thrilling to watch, as Rush Limbaugh was, in his prime, a wonderfully overblown radio experience. This is theatre, and for a party that claims to be made up of creative types - we sure don't do it well.

We're three weeks away from an election, and the buzz outside of Hollywood and New York is - in my mind - almost imperceptible. At the screening of "So Goes The Nation" last week, one of the lead characters who was a key Democratic field worker was asked if anything has changed since 2004. His answer, "I hope so, but I don't think so." Ouch.

It's docu week at the Museum of Radio and TV in New York, and that means premiers panels, and some extraordinary talks.

PBS's American Masters gave audiences an advance look at the upcoming Annie Leibovitz profile. While the rough cut was perhaps a bit rougher than either the subject or the filmmakers would have liked - the entire experience was pretty extraordinary.

First of all - Annie Leibovitz was in the audience. And her entire family was there as well. Sisters, brothers, and her three children. It was like a Leibovitz family reunion. And since her sister was the filmmaker - there was plenty of complex family politics to go round.

Among the complex -and interesting - politics i the room... the fact that Annie was involved with Susan Sontage. Maybe i missed this chapter, and the film is pretty ginger about how it handles it, but the relationship is pretty gripping even with few details. Then there's the relationship between Annie and Jann Werner of Rolling Stone. If you buy the film's take on their relationship, he was a proud mentor who pushed her from the nest when it was time to go. But after annie took the stage, her first comment was 'there's too much of jann in there' and then again - after moment - "well, he wasn't easy to work for - when he was there." So clearly there relationship is more complex than the film lets on. And then there's the open question of the 3 children than arrive mid way into the film, with no explanation of where they came from. Perhaps it's private, but it's a bit strange to do a biographic profile and leave big questions about the subject unanswered.

With all of that said - the story is amazing. Annie started in San Fransico in the '60's, had extraordinary access to the Rolling Stones, and was the photographer to the rock and roll royalty for almost 20 years. The images, and footage from the 1960's - makes this film a must see. And Annie's pictures are the star of the show.

You know that old saying - if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

Well, it's true.

And if you're big media - than all stories about media are about 'bigness' or about wanting
to achieve bigness, or about consolidation to achieve bigness.

The only problem is - no one is asking the customers if the relative size of the media participate
in makes it more engaging.

Just take a look at the statistics. While the media likes to report the size of MySpace as a single number, that doesn't really make any sense. MySpace is a zillion tiny little networks (some really wonderful, others really creepy). There is statistic floating around that says 65% of all the videos teens watch on the web is created by someone they know. How cool is that.

If bigness is no longer the driver - than what is? Well, it is in fact smallness. The narrow-nitchafication of media.

Channels as communities. Social Networks as media networks. And perhaps most frighteningly
of all - the emergence of a class of media makers who express themselves as an act of pleasure, or expression, or engagement.

Yochai Benkler - who is by day a law professor at Yale - has taken the position in various papers and books that the future of media is going to look very much like the open source software community today. That people will make and share content (like code) in a peer environment. Why will they do it? Because human beings like telling stories, connecting, and being part of tribes.

Not surprisingly - you haven't heard of Benkler. Why? Because the future that he envisions will dramatically reshape the media universe, and none of the current keepers of the keys to the kingdom are enthusiastic about promoting a future in which unpaid peers are making and experience each others home-made media.

Evidence, YouTube is rarely covered for its content, instead it makes headlines for its Bigness. As if its size somehow ratifies the idea that all media is big, and all successful media companies are looking to be bought, rolled-up, consolidated, and homogenized.

The shift from commercial media makers to peer production isn't likely to explore (or implode) any time soon. Instead, there is subtle shift that draws more and more value from community members - and pushes up the stack the media making that requires professional full time attention.

So reporting GooTube is about 'biggness' - gets it all wrong.

Television is exploding. And all the little bits that are being created will blossom into micro networks of friends, creators, remixers, and storytellers. It's a five year launch-pad of what will be in the end a new way to learn, teach, explore and express ourselves.

How cool is that?

You know that old saying - if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

Well, it's true.

And if you're big media - than all stories about media are about 'bigness' or about wanting
to achieve bigness, or about consolidation to achieve bigness.

The only problem is - no one is asking the customers if the relative size of the media participate

in makes it more engaging.
Just take a look at the statistics. While the media likes to report the size of MySpace as a single number, that doesn't really make any sense. MySpace is a zillion tiny little networks (some really wonderful, others really creepy). There is statistic floating around that says 65% of all the videos teens watch on the web is created by someone they know. How cool is that.

If bigness is no longer the driver - than what is? Well, it is in fact smallness. The narrow-nitchafication of media.

Channels as communities. Social Networks as media networks. And perhaps most frighteningly
of all - the emergence of a class of media makers who express themselves as an act of pleasure, or expression, or engagement.

Yochai Benkler - who is by day a law professor at Yale - has taken the position in various papers and books that the future of media is going to look very much like the open source software community today. That people will make and share content (like code) in a peer environment. Why will they do it? Because human beings like telling stories, connecting, and being part of tribes.

Not surprisingly - you haven't heard of Benkler. Why? Because the future that he envisions will dramatically reshape the media universe, and none of the current keepers of the keys to the kingdom are enthusiastic about promoting a future in which unpaid peers are making and experience each others home-made media.

Evidence, YouTube is rarely covered for its content, instead it makes headlines for its Bigness. As if its size somehow ratifies the idea that all media is big, and all successful media companies are looking to be bought, rolled-up, consolidated, and homogenized.

The shift from commercial media makers to peer production isn't likely to explore (or implode) any time soon. Instead, there is subtle shift that draws more and more value from community members - and pushes up the stack the media making that requires professional full time attention.

So reporting GooTube is about 'biggness' - gets it all wrong.

Television is exploding. And all the little bits that are being created will blossom into micro networks of friends, creators, remixers, and storytellers. It's a five year launch-pad of what will be in the end a new way to learn, teach, explore and express ourselves.

How cool is that?

From The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/political-satire-and-the-_b_31345.html

Google acquires YouTube, let the games begin!

Have heard the one about Mark Foley and the congressional pages?

Ok, truth is - there's more than one. There are tons of satire videos... and they're all on the web.

Thanks to the proliferation of high quality video camera and web access, there's growing community of political satirists that ply their trade entirely on the web.

I can't say i'm entirely surprised. Back in 1996 - when i created MTV UNfiltered - there were already ton's of people who wanted to record their personal, political, and often partisan opinions and get them on TV. At MTV partisan politics wasn't in the cards - but today with YouTube, Goolge, AOL, and Revver hosting and sharing sharp satire, there's an explosion in user-generated political satire.
And guess what, it's pretty darn funny.

Here's an example of a Mark Foley re-enactment that deadpan and brilliant.

In fact - there's a whole 'channel' of Mark Foley videos, and more growing every day.

It may be that the trend officially started back when the JibJab guys began to do their brilliant riffs on the 2004 political scene. But the fact is that amature satire is now growing like a weed. There's no shortage of George Bush bashing. But Hillary Clinton has her share of sharp elbowed home made videos. And Jon Stewart seems almost mild mannered if you listen to Ze Frank.

What's happening is that people are, for the first time, engaged in the process of making media. And there should be little surprise about what they want to talk about. They want to talk about their Country, their elected officials, things that make them want to jump out of their chair and say "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm not going to take it any More." (ok, i stole that, but it's such a good line).

Satire encompasses all of those things - oh, and yeah, it's funny too. But it also reflects a fundamental hunger on the part of makers to talk back to politics, to call folks like Mark Foley on the carpet for acting as if he's not accountable to anyone. Citizens having the power to speak out about those in power is a healthly, normal, and i would argue necessary thing.

And now, with the power of Google's search engine driving the discovery of videos published on YouTube, the era of self-service satire is here to stay.

A few more Foley videos (in case you want some more): here, here and here.

Google acquires YouTube, let the games begin!

Have heard the one about Mark Foley and the congressional pages?

Ok, truth is - there's more than one. There are tons of satire videos... and they're all on the web.

Thanks to the proliferation of high quality video camera and web access, there's growing community of political satirists that ply their trade entirely on the web.
I can't say i'm entirely surprised. Back in 1996 - when i created MTV UNfiltered - there were already ton's of people who wanted to record their personal, political, and often partisan opinions and get them on TV. At MTV partisan politics wasn't in the cards - but today with YouTube, Goolge, AOL, and Revver hosting and sharing sharp satire, there's an explosion in user-generated political satire.

And guess what, it's pretty darn funny.

Here's an example of a Mark Foley re-enactment that deadpan and brilliant.

In fact - there's a whole 'channel' of Mark Foley videos, and more growing every day.

It may be that the trend officially started back when the JibJab guys began to do their brilliant riffs on the 2004 political scene. But the fact is that amature satire is now growing like a weed. There's no shortage of George Bush bashing. But Hillary Clinton has her share of sharp elbowed home made videos. And Jon Stewart seems almost mild mannered if you listen to Ze Frank.

What's happening is that people are, for the first time, engaged in the process of making media. And there should be little surprise about what they want to talk about. They want to talk about their Country, their elected officials, things that make them want to jump out of their chair and say "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm not going to take it any More." (ok, i stole that, but it's such a good line).

Satire encompasses all of those things - oh, and yeah, it's funny too. But it also reflects a fundamental hunger on the part of makers to talk back to politics, to call folks like Mark Foley on the carpet for acting as if he's not accountable to anyone. Citizens having the power to speak out about those in power is a healthly, normal, and i would argue necessary thing.

And now, with the power of Google's search engine driving the discovery of videos published on YouTube, the era of self-service satire is here to stay.

A few more Foley videos (in case you want some more): here, here and here.

Have heard the one about Mark Foley and the congressional pages?

Ok, truth is - there's more than one. There are tons of satire videos... and they're all on the web.

Thanks to the proliferation of high quality video camera and web access, there's growing community of political satirists that ply their trade entirely on the web.

I can't say i'm entirely surprised. Back in 1996 - when i created MTV UNfiltered - there were already ton's of people who wanted to record their personal, political, and often partisan opinions and get them on TV. At MTV partisan politics wasn't in the cards - but today with YouTube, Goolge, AOL, and Revver hosting and sharing sharp satire, there's an explosion in user-generated political satire.
And guess what, it's pretty darn funny.

Here's an example of a Mark Foley re-enactment that deadpan and brilliant.

In fact - there's a whole 'channel' of Mark Foley videos, and more growing every day.

It may be that the trend officially started back when the JibJab guys began to do their brilliant riffs on the 2004 political scene. But the fact is that amature satire is now growing like a weed. There's no shortage of George Bush bashing. But Hillary Clinton has her share of sharp elbowed home made videos. And Jon Stewart seems almost mild mannered if you listen to Ze Frank.

What's happening is that people are, for the first time, engaged in the process of making media. And there should be little surprise about what they want to talk about. They want to talk about their Country, their elected officials, things that make them want to jump out of their chair and say "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm not going to take it any More." (ok, i stole that, but it's such a good line).

Satire encompasses all of those things - oh, and yeah, it's funny too. But it also reflects a fundamental hunger on the part of makers to talk back to politics, to call folks like Mark Foley on the carpet for acting as if he's not accountable to anyone. Citizens having the power to speak out about those in power is a healthly, normal, and i would argue necessary thing.

And now, with the power of Google's search engine driving the discovery of videos published on YouTube, the era of self-service satire is here to stay.

A few more Foley videos (in case you want some more): here, here and here.

If it happens - - - and there are lots of indicators that say it will - the acquisition of YouTube by Google should be a good thing.

YouTube did a terrific job of connecting its platform to creators. Despite the cries that YouTube is fueled by copyright violators, the fact is that the top 20 videos are almost always home made and often very good. The only immediate issue is music, since lots of people use copyright music as part of their lip sync or montage videos. But YouTube is dealing with that, making deals and putting in place tech that should begin to detect songs. The real question is what does the music industry want to do, allow the use or shut it down. Really, they just want to get paid.

And sites want to get paid, and creators want to get paid. So does Google bring it's ad tech to video - and if so, does that open UGC to a whole new kind of revenue?

I'd say yes - it does.

Part of what gets lost is that the very nature of advertising is changing. And Television is the next frontier.

Think for a sec about Google and their revenues. Then go on google and type in Alaska Cruise, or Doc Martins, or discount laptop. You're not seeing SAAB, or Coke, or General Foods ads. You're seeing direct response, discounters, and such. You're seeing ads that would have been in the past found in the Yellow Pages. So leading national advertisers, the big brands of TV, aren't really there yet. And maybe they won't be. It hardly matters.

Because if you look at GPS, Google Maps, and the shift toward national discount and local service ads- video is likely to follow that trend. The ads that never really took off on cable (local retail, local services, and classifieds) are all likely to be the fuel that powers the video advertising trend on the web.

These are brand new customers, who've used local newspaper and radio to do the job in the past, but are going to be far more interested in a pay-per-click model for video on the web.

So that's the place where a marriage of Google and YouTube really sings.

Let's see what the next 24 hours brings.

Who says YouTube isn't about empowering creative expression?

Films increasingly have different roles in the world. There are some films that are pure entertainment. There are some that have a political mission or agenda. And then there are some that are surprisingly pure of heart.

Adam Del Deo's "So Goes the Nation" could have taken the easy way out. There is such anger at the outcome of the 2004 election, and such a popular rumor that Ohio was rife with election fraud, that a film that played to the fears of a rigged election would have been a welcome romp. But this film doesn't grab the low hanging fruit.

Instead, a film that presents itself as a take on Ohio in fact is a illuminating view of the 2004 election. The film records thoughtful post-election interviews with Ken Mehlman... Paul Begala....Mary Beth Cahill....Ed Gillespie....Terry McAuliffe....

And there is no doubt that this film is an even handed - eye opening - look at 2004. The Republican's don't gloat. The Democrats don't whine - much. And the result is a pretty honest look at what happened.

It's not fun. but it is gripping. And it should be required viewing for Democrats. The film opens in NY at the IFC Center.

The thing about an event that bills itself as a look into the future is that people come prepared to be wowed.

So, when Murray - my eight year old - and I trucked to the Javits Center at 8:30 on a Sunday Morning, we had pretty high expectations. The Wired Magazine Nextfest didn't disappoint.

In fact - there were some things that were absolutely amazing.

I'm not sure why - but we were drawn magnetically to Robot's Row, and there we saw a number of robots that seems almost ready for prime-time. There was the Honda Robot with the strangly attached Einstein's head. There was the ReActor (a female humanoid who promised to answer the phone and be a receptionist), and there were a number of single purpose robots (the Bartender Robot was my favorite). And then a number of less human looking, but very impressive industrial robots that were spinning records, building things, and even a 'robot shoot-out' with a stadium and teams of high school robot makers. But the thing that blew me away was the articulated hands that were being demo'd off in the corner. One was connected to a glove, and as the demonstrator wiggled his fingers, the digits on the hand moved in perfect synchronization. The other - using the same hand - was connected to a camera. As i put my hand in front of the camera, the camera fed the image to a computer that observed my hand and fingers, and i was able to control the hand simply by moving my hand in the air. It was very precise, and very impressive.

We skipped the automotive and health care paviliions, since the auto stuff seemed more like a car show than a tech show. And our next stop was the future of entertainment. There were tons of exhibits here, and lots having to do with people interactive with large scale video environments. Murray totallly loved this - and had a ton of fun playing soccer, air hockey, and a bunch of other very physical virtual games. The most interesting was a actual rock wall - with handgrips that lit up. Murray had to scramble up the wall (as the light was often near the top of the wall, hit the lit up hand grip, and then go searching for the next lit object. You could tell that the wall had some logic about how and were it put the next challenge, and Murray was more than happy to battle the wall and win points. Very cool.

Last but not least were a whole series of less practical but more theoretical visions. Pieces of art that changed with their environment, a 3d 'host' that welcomed you (but complained if you tried to comb her hair). Very Japanse - not sure why i would have tried to comb her hair except that the sign told me to. Finally - the Nasa exhibit, that was full of space suits and - surprise - a User-Generated Video Contest.

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/NASA_greatest_fan/index_noaccess.html