I've been editing this weblog publicly it seems. I write something, publish it, then come back later and change it without making any mention of what I've changed or what has been updated or deleted. It's not normal I know, I only do it here. If I decide to make a change after 2-days of it being up, I'll let you know. That hasn't happened yet. Otherwise, let's just say posts are allowed to evolve over a 48-hr period.
Anyway, I was just posting about TV being defined by content that is "made for tv" which excludes a lot of other content, like movies, videoblogs, audio, photographs, citizen journalism, personal media, etc. Thus the word "TV" is so loaded, it doesnt feel good to use.
I've noticed that since DV came along, there are far fewer opportunities for the public to get their videos on broadcast TV. Ever since I was a little kid there were shows on British television that invited people to submit their films/videos. Now we can produce broadcast quality, but where are the opportunities?
Maybe this is one kind of programme that has been squeezed out as things have become more ratings driven. On the other hand I have a sneaking suspicion that they always liked the fact that home-made productions looked so bad on screen.
The other night, watching a BBC programme about the London Tube bombings in July, and how events were recorded by the public, I was struck by what poor quality most of the images and video were, as they had been shot on cameraphones. These must be some of the poorest quality cameras since photography was first invented. I can't quite understand why they are so bad. But clearly the broadcasters love this terrible 'amateur' quality footage ;-)