Talk:Current TV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(March 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
Is this a press release or an encyclopedia entry?
As you'll note, the original posting for this entry as INdTV was pretty much a press-release. I attempted to take what was in the press release and retain the information, and provide more insight into how the network developed. I realize my prose was more in line with an op-ed piece than an encyclopedia entry and I encourage anyone clarify my points from a more objective voice.
[edit] NPOV
This rewrite and some of it's details read like it came from someone inside Current's marketing dept. NPOV tag added. Details listed in rewrite section. Silent.reprobate (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions
Full disclosure -- My name is Mario Anima, and I'm the director for online community on Current.com. I have some suggestions, but I thought it would be best to offer them here first to avoid NPOV concerns in the actual entry. Some of the info in entry is a little stale, so I thought it best to point out some examples, and offer some resources.
A couple of things to note for the history section. First was the October 15th, 2007 relaunch as Current.com. The new beta site featured a redesigned homepage with the ability to view content aired on TV, and to contribute news stories, videos, blog posts, and other media stories from all over the web. Also, community members vote on and discuss these submissions, which increased chances for the items to be featured by our online programmers on the homepage.
Of course, another missing aspect that made some waves was the announcement of intent to file for IPO.
The Current.com homepage underwent further revisions with the launch of Current:News on April 2nd, 2008. This included yet another revision to the homepage, but more importantly it added to the community voting aspect on the site in support of Current:News -- a collaborative newscast that airs on Current TV at the top of every hour. Here's how it works, community votes and other activity on submitted items translate into popularity based on some algorithmic mojo. Popularity ultimately influences what shows up in the popular section on the homepage. Popular items vie for the next available slot in Current:News (the modules at the top of the page), and the story occupying the top spot in the popular feed when the countdown timer runs down wins fame, fortune, and glory...in an upcoming episode of Current:News. Once the next story is picked, our Current:News team reviews the selected items and discussions taking place on each one, and they cut together a new episode of Current:News to air at the top of the hour. The title of each item, alongside the original contributor and editorially selected comments from the accompanying discussion are highlighted in each Current:News pod.
So far, the robotic voice used in Current:News pods has had a somewhat polarizing impact on some community members. Another change was the airing of Current:News at the top of every hour, a spot formerly held by infoMania. Instead, infoMania has moved into a new time slot and is now a full half-hour show.
Some structural stuff: Would it be better to have a separate section for TV vs. Current.com? Maybe not, your call. Another thing, we do have some pretty popular pods on Current TV, so perhaps a section dedicated to our in-house productions? Here are some links to our more popular shows:
infoMania -- snarky take on recent web-related news. Includes a segment called Viral Video Film School, which is pretty popular.
SuperNews! -- an animated political satire series
Daily Fix -- music news
Vanguard -- investigative international journalism
Let me know what you think, and please let me know if there is a better way to do this. I really don't want to cause a stir here.
Marioanima (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] rewrite
I am interested in editing this entry. I would like to have a week to do research the subject. I would appreciate if the article is not deleted in the coming weeks. I suspect that this network may be involved with potentially interesting/significant activities. Thanks in advance. Fastplanet 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There does need to be a rewrite, but there is no significant activities that the network is involved in, aside from possible criticism throughout the political spectrum (yes, on multiple instances including "liberals") for its content.Planetsconspire 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an especially boring piece; it reads more like a timeline than an article designed to inform. It would be much more pleasing to read if someone could change it away from a "just the facts" writing style, and put in more exposition about the people involved other than Hyatt and Gore. Is the Emmy the only award its won? Who else was nominated for the same award, or were they the only entrant? I'm sure I could look up that ceremony and find out, but it would be much more captivating to say who Current defeated for the award inside the Current TV article. At the same time, is this the network's only accolade, has it been nominated for others but not won?
At the same time, the programming section describes the format of a Current show, but does not name any shows or schedules. This seems to imply that Current broadcasts random segments with no regards towards a schedule; is this true, or is there a regular line up of shows (prime time, for example).
For an article about a television network, there's very little information here about the network itself, and a much stronger focus on the corporation behind it and its business dealings. AR 3/14/08.
There is no verifiable source that can corroborate Current TV's claim that "30% of their content comes from their users", until that can be independently verified I have removed it from their listing for the second time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.26.84 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Current TV in the last year has become Current.com and changed much of the information that is on this listing. Their website is in a new beta format which has removed the voting apparatus where the online community of users vote for video submissions for airplay, and I am uncertain of what criteria they now use for user-submitted content.
The anonymous entry above has also mentioned there is no means to verify the amount of user content on their channel, as it is hard to corroborate that 30% of their content indeed is "user-contributed". It is not clear on their website that they even accept video submissions anymore? This page needs to be updated to reflect the changes to their website model immediately. Silent.reprobate (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is not accurate: "The channel has exclusive rights over viewer-submitted segments, but not copyright ownership." I believe this is incorrect since Current TV can and does re-edit pods that are submitted to their network to reflect the theme, style and tone of the network. If the pod creator retained any copyright rights then this would not be allowed, as it would be distorting and/or changing the original tone of the pod presented by the author. Silent.reprobate (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"The news network was said to be a combination between CNN, MTV, and blipverts." - source this quote or remove it please, it sounds like anecdotal marketing talk. Silent.reprobate (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked the wording on the PROGRAM section to reflect a more realistic view of the approval process, the role of voting by the community at current.com and the nature of licensing pods for airplay. Silent.reprobate (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Amaya Brecher's host listing now points to her wiki article about her role as a cast member on MTV's The Real World: Hawaii instead of the promotional link to some esoteric radio show website Bananananna Republic (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a strong NPOV here as well as of may 12. I suggest sending a warning to said person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.20.7 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
