New.Journalism.Review

A while ago I posted about CNN Exchange – the site that encourages CNN viewers to upload their news clips for possible broadcast.

All contributors have to agree to a load of ghastly small print…

"By submitting your material, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which you hereby acknowledge, you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide  license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof, as incorporated in any of their programming or the promotion thereof, in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised, without payment to you or any third party."

Although it’s ‘non-exclusive’ (good), CNN can use it how and as often as it likes (very bad). They can even broadcast the valuable footage using technology yet to be invented! And you don’t get a penny for it. Sensible people with valuable content – be it documentary, news, or naked frolics in the park footage – want to be paid.

Forget YouTube and Google Video. Scott Kirchner, writer for Variety magazine, has reviewed a wide selection of new video sites that pay contributers for clips.

Here are some of the main business models (some sites use a mixture of methods).

1) Get paid for ads: Some of the tight-wad sites only pay the producer if the viewer clicks on an ad. Who clicks those ads? Nobody.Ignore.

2) Get paid when people view – MetaCafe uses this system.The threshold is quite high. An uploaded video has to be seen 20,000 times before the producer gets a sniff at the dosh. But 20,000 views earns $100. At the time of writing "Reel Stunts" and "Maverick99" top the earning charts – making $26,000. MetaCafe T&Cs can be found here.This looks ok.

3) Editor decides who should be paid: It kills the idea of Web 2.0, but many of the more "upmarket" sites employ editors to "filter" the content. The politically "right-on"  Current TV UK (owned by former Vice-Prez,  Al Gore) has a list of draconian terms & conditions as long as your arm. Anyone with any understanding of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will see that it strips producers of most of their rights.

Current TV is very controlling for a site with (apparently) liberal ideals. The T&C’s even state: "I agree not to issue any publicity on behalf of Current, but
acknowledge that I am free to make casual and non-derogatory public
statements regarding Current."

Current TV has a deal with BSkyB in the UK. The best footage from the website will be shown on telly. Current TV is well established in the US and pays up to $100 if the clips are chosen by editors for broadcast. You don’t get a penny if it just appears on the site. Evil Mr Gore.

4)  "Sell" your video online - The percentages vary. But some sites allow the producer to keep 70% of the sale price. Brightcove uses this and the company has just done a deal with AOL Video which could rapidly increase its viewer share.

Video sites, such as Google Video and YouTube, have gathered significant amounts of user generated (citizen journalism) footage from war-torn Lebanon. A vid on YouTube currently causing a stir is this one from a young Lebanese Boy.

Meanwhile CNN has launched a user-generated content website called CNN Exchange. Viewers upload their content FOR FREE, but in exchange for what exactly?

i-Reporters, as CNN has now dubbed its unpaid contributers, should upload their video clips and digital snaps for no other motive than to provide copyright-free content to Time Warner corp?

Closer to home, if you’re fortunate or unfortunate, depending on your perspective, to be at the scene of a disaster or bombing in Southampton you could upload to Meridian News, which has been demanding you hand over clips and copyright for some while.

Anyone with good content should at least contact one of the new generation of ‘content brokers’. These guys attempt to sell content on your behalf. See Scoopt

According to a survey by Pew Research Center, most bloggers are focused on "describing their personal experiences to a relatively small audience of readers and that only a small proportion focus their coverage on politics, media, government, or technology."

Here are some stats:

• The blog population has grown to about 12 million American adults (8% of adult Internet users).
• 57 million American adults, or 39% of the online population read blogs (note: the research is unclear about frequency) of blog reading).
• 54% of bloggers are under the age of 30
• 76% of bloggers say a reason they blog is to document their personal experiences and share them with others.
• 64% of bloggers say a reason they blog is to share practical knowledge or skills with others.
• When asked to choose one main subject, 37% of bloggers say that the primary topic of their blog is "my life and experiences."
• Other topics ran distantly behind: 11% of bloggers focus on politics and government; 7% focus on entertainment; 6% focus on sports; 5% focus on general news and current events; 5% focus on business; 4% on technology; 2% on religion, spirituality or faith; and additional smaller groups who focus on a specific hobby, a health problem or illness, or other topics.

Press attention tends to focus on a small number of "A-List bloggers", but the research from Pew suggests that this group is unrepresentative of the wider blogging community. Results based on a  telephone survey of 7,000 net users in the US.

The full PDF report is available here

Google has just launched its video upload service going under the inspired title of "Google Video".

A quick glance at the Top 100 most popular uploads reveals the usual mix of dubious dancing to popular records, Jackass-style stunts (mainly people setting themselves on fire) and a Paris Hilton video (not that one!). In short, it’s YouTube with British user-generated content.

Read the July issue of Wired whilst enjoying a Starbucks in Borders. It has stunning cover and a reasonably enlightening interview with Murdoch about the News Corp. purchase of MySpace.

Murdoch on newspapers.."Can newspapers make money online? Sure. Can they make enough to replace what’s going out? At the moment, with the Internet so competitive, so new, and so cheap, the answer is no. But don’t look at it as a newspaper – look at it as a journalistic enterprise. If you’ve got authority and trust, if you can make the news interesting, you’ll survive."

Murdoch on buying MySpace.. “You want to learn from MySpace. Can you democratise newspapers, for instance? What does it mean for how we do sports or politics? I don’t know – no one does. I just know we’ll figure it out.”

Read the full article by Spencer Reiss