Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>How many of those billion of choices offer you >Pittsburgh material? Only a few. > >If you're living in Blawnox, yeah, you'll be watching >KDKA for news on a water main break in Etna. But if >you're a native burgher living in Denver, Washington >or any other corner of earth displaced Pittsburgers >inhabit, you're visiting the PG's or even the Trib's >site for Steelers updates or Kennywood's sale before >you're visiting KDKA's or WTAE's web site. > >>So if I have billions of video choices, why am I going >>to watch the Post-Gazette? Surely at least 10 million >>of those choices are better. >> >> >> >>>I could see your point if this was 1998 instead of >>>2008, but you're off the mark. >>> >>>Even if you have 60, or even 100 or hell... 300 >>>channels on your television, you still have literally >>>billions on the Internet. >>> >>>This isn't your father's dial-up modem Internet where >>>if you had an AOL profile page, you were hot stuff 10 >>>or 15 years ago. >>> >>>I'm not saying the numbers outweigh television >>>viewership, yet, but more people get their >>>information, entertainment, news, etc. from the >>>Internet in the form of videos than they did 10 or >>>even five years ago. >>> >>>Why do you think sports leagues or film companies >>>crack down on how much of their content gets on >>>YouTube? They want that Web traffic diverted to their >>>site. That way, the NFL can have people watch >Steelers >>>highlights with a big Coors ad in the middle of it >>>that generates revenue. >>> >>>Basically my point is that provided it's done well >>>(not quite to television standards mind you, but with >>>some level of competence), video on the PG's, ESPN's, >>>CNN's, etc's site is a valuable tool. It's one thing >>>to simply tell a story. It's another thing to show it >>>as well. >>> >>> >>>>But what's the point? Newspapers are never going to >>do >>>>TV as well as TV does it. Also who wants to log onto >>a >>>>newspaper's website for amateur TV content when you >>>>can click on a TV set and have your choice of 60 >>>>channels? Unless newspapers develop unique video >>>>content, they're always going to be playing a losing >>>>game. >>>> >>>>Anybody remember the P-G's radio network in the >early >>>>'90s? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I had some doubts about the PG's stuff early on, >but >>>>>their political videos have been very, very good. >>>>>Toland took a beating for that first show, and >maybe >>>>>I'm alone in this, but I thought his Altmeyer >>>>>interview was pretty slick. Even their sports >videos >>>>>have shown tremendous improvement. The podcasts are >>>>>hit and miss, but the fact they're even doing them >>is >>>>>pretty impressive. The PG does seem to be on a fast >>>>>track with this stuff. >>>>> >>>>>>If you can't do video right, BCT can't and the >Trib >>>>>>can't. The PG has done some dumb things, like the >>>>>>"News Now" fiasco and the Early Show with Bill >>>Toland >>>>>>yet they are way ahead of the pack in this region. >>>If >>>>>>their ideas have not come together yet, the fact >>>that >>>>>>they've already got polish, quality and >>>>sophistication >>>>>>in their presentation puts them in the driver's >>>>seat. >>>>>>Their stuff is so far beyond anyone else's that >>it's >>>>>>pathetic. It's the concepts that need work. >>>>>> >>>>>>No one expects much from the Trib and in their >>video >>>>>>efforts no one is getting much just like the >>>majority >>>>>>of the print and web editorial "product" they >>offer. >>>>>>BCT's site does look like a bunch of kids playing >>>>with >>>>>>video gear, and why waste time at the very moment >>>>>>management's coldly cutting people loose and >>slicing >>>>>>the paper's editorial resources down to zip? If >>>BCT >>>>>>is going to be run by a skeleton crew why even >>>bother >>>>>>with the paper itself, much less video? >>>>>> >>>>>>>People have poked fun at the P-G's video efforts, >>>>but >>>>>>>their stuff is network quality compared to this >>>crap >>>>>>>that the Beaver County Times posted on their >>>>website. >>>>>>>Look at the player interviews, where the players >>>>>>>aren't even in frame. Looks like some junior high >>>>>kids >>>>>>>signed out a video camera and scammed a locker >>room >>>>>>>credential. Why would they even post something >>this >>>>>>>bad? Hey, maybe it's high satire? >>>>>>> >>>>>>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>>>href="http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/04/19/ >s >>p >>>o >>>>r >>>>>t >>>>>>s >>>>>>>/doc4807f67de6f2d673797982.txt">http://timesonlin >e >>. >>>c >>>>o >>>>>m >>>>>>/ >>>>>>>articles/2008/04/19/sports/doc4807f67de6f2d673797 >9 >>8 >>>2 >>>>. >>>>>t >>>>>>x >>>>>>>t</a>

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.