Sunday, November 29, 2009

Newer horizons video networking

This week is Creative Fight Club on in which we'll be refining the horizons for videojournalism and social networking.

And tomorrow 15 years after a bunch of people took the plunge into the unknown with videojournalism many from Channel One UK will meet for the first time at a wine bar in Charlotte street

Apologies for my absence. Time has become a commodity I need more off.

Even as I write this, there are markings and films to edit and make. But its been an eventful week and as the winter months take hold. I can't see any let-up.

An article I posted on finding a job was due to be followed up with a radio piece I heard on BBC Radio 4, in which one of the UK's leading technologist asked why the UK had nothing to rival Silicon Valley.

For the life of me I cannot find the original item on the Today programme. I break sleep at 6 in he morning. The item was on soon after, and Radio 4 only record their show from 7.00 am.


This week in future journalism
So to this last week includes:

  • An informative post about the journalist of the future from the BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones. Synopsis. Editors still want the pros, but having other skills help.
  • New journalist Damien Van Achter from the Belgian TV station RTBF gets flagged up after US State department offered him an interview with Sec of state Hillary Clinton, according the article.
  • Elsewhere, I have been talking about this for a while: the idea that you'll say something presumably innocuous only to find out you're being sued in the libel capital of the world, London.
  • Here's the BBC Today broadcast. Scroll down to 8.48.
  • And on Andrew Marrs political Sunday show, finally an issue that has blunts any attempt at journalism on London's streets.
Beware because police powers means they'll stop you in the name of Terrorism laws and demand you stop taking photos. You can see what happened to Financial Times reporters
when I was consulting with the group over video journalism and we got stopped on a story.

And finally reports the Telegraph why did the US fail to capture Bin laden when they could - a senate report asks. It couldn't be that he was worth more to US military resources now than he was back then because that would be a perverse thought.

"Removing the al-Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the senate report said.