More On Internet Media

I'm sitting at McDonalds in Warrensburg and mooching off their free WiFi.  I needed to do some normal Internet stuff, plus think more about what I said in my previous post.  At the end of said post, I briefly mentioned RT.  The site is a 24 hour news site from Russia that has a video channel in English.  Though it would be considered small potatoes compared to corporate entities, it does have a few things going for it.

• They have a global presence enabled by satellite, cable, and hotel partnerships in addition to online streaming.
• They have a social network presence.
• They rely on audio, video, images, and text.

This isn't to say they get everything right.  After all, it is based out of Russia, and it will have a Russian perspective.  However, they don't rely on radio, or the human voice by itself.  They use a variety of mediums blended together to broadcast to the world.  There was once an up and coming network that was aiming to be global in scope, but it never reached enough popularity to do so.  The likes of YouTube and other sites supplanted it before its popularity could explode.

It was called Phaylon, and had there been enough support behind it, it would have exploded.  The founder of that network was going to bypass corporate owned media by creating a multimedia infrastructure embedded inside the backbone of the Internet.  Streaming video and audio along with news articles would have given the people a different perspective on world events.  If a major event unfolded before our very eyes, that network would have covered it without the filter.  With HTML 5's video and audio tags, WebM, and ingenuity, something like that is still possible.

What is needed is an RT that has a global reach while not being anchored by any country or any corporation.

A Word On Internet Media

My apologies for not posting something new a whole lot sooner than I should have. I tend to get distracted, which is what makes Internet media a double edged sword. While new and controversial information and viewpoints are exchanged, it comes at the cost of people having shorter attention spans. This is especially true with Internet radio.

Shoutcast, Live365, and other platforms offer other voices an opportunity to be heard, but the timing has to be right. This year, certain individuals and concepts are popular, so if a network was built at the beginning of the year, it had a chance to get noticed. However, if an individual or concept fades away as the year passes, then that network could be in trouble. I've been more of an observer than participant in all of this, but that perspective is precisely what's needed now.

I hate to break anyone's heart, but Internet talk radio is on the way out. Those who have been established for years on end, whether it's an individual host or an entire network, will be able to hold onto their demographic so long as the younger generations are drawn in. With the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys, the audience will be on the decline. Can a newly formed network (or one that has been revived) survive? Only if that network can transition itself into something unique. In other words, avoid being a "me too" product. Also, having just streaming audio is too limiting. Internet media does have a future, but it has to be done right.

Those looking for an example should look at RT.com. It is pro-Russian, but it should give you an idea of what will have to be done.