April 16, 2009

"The video you have selected requires you to be a member of Pajamas TV."

To see a complete list of free videos click here.

For information on the full range of Pajamas TV offerings click here.

Sign in
I was going to check out Glenn Reynolds's video
SO I COVERED THE KNOXVILLE TEA PARTY LIVE, with an experimental (I kludged it together myself!) wireless broadband camera rig consisting of a JVC pro DV camera firewired into my Macbook Pro, then connecting to PJTV studios over iChat using a Verizon broadband card. It worked pretty well — but, mostly, I was just relieved that it worked.
— and I encountered that screen full of crap.

How can anyone possibly think it will work to combine amateur-style video with a pay-to-view scheme? Even if some of the material is free, how can they think we'll fiddle with figuring anything out to get to it? If a blog says "go here" to see video, in this day of YouTube, the click better go straight to a simple, easy-to-play video.

15 comments:

Dave said...

Indeed.

New York said...

After flailing around with no direction for a few years, PJM finally has some kind of raison d'etre w/ the tea party coverage.

It would be really silly to transition to a pay model now.

Rob said...

I was feeling like providing some kind of "sour grapes" comment and then of course was amused to see the "Subscribe to post comments" at the bottom of the entry.

I guess I was at least willing to jump through those hoops at an earlier date.

EDH said...

The other thing about video I've noticed is that if you don't have a "brand" or, worse, are just boring, you better get to the point pretty quickly.

By "brand" I mean some basis for me, the viewer, to believe that you have an interesting "take" and that when you eventually get to a point, it will be worth the time invested.

At least in a written piece you can skim ahead to see if there is a point worth your time.

Reynolds and Malkin have those brands, I think.

But blind faith that some poorly prepared droning head will eventually get to a point worth the time is a bit of a leap. Even if the video is free, as my time is worth something.

I think the pay to play is an additional impediment to building new brands, as it will turn people away from even your established brands.

rhhardin said...

Instapundit is a little strange in this and that area. His photos are so anti-composed that you'd be hard pressed to come up with an aesthetic theory to account for it; and his obliviousness to lame video will never be equaled.

His site is great, on the other hand. There's no explaining it.

It's focussed talent, let's say.

Palladian said...

"His photos are so anti-composed that you'd be hard pressed to come up with an aesthetic theory to account for it; and his obliviousness to lame video will never be equaled."

Forget Hal Foster, Pajamas TV is the Anti-Aesthetic.

zedzded said...

Unlike Althouse, Reynolds has no training in how to see. And it shows in his god awful pictures. Seriously, could they be much worse? Go to Flickr and you can see thousands of pictures that bad. Maybe millions. My eyes get tired before the survey is complete.

Yet he defends them by writing "my friends say they are good". Sure they do, Glenn, but the rest of us think they suck. He also says he does not have to learn about composition because he has a "natural talent" for it. Right. We see that. Now go learn something.

His drinking is having an effect on him, I think. He always looks a bit sloshed in the videos.

peter hoh said...

Reynolds was touting this on NPR yesterday. Wonder how many of the latte-sipping elite joined PJTV just so they could watch the action.

PatHMV said...

I like blogging because I like to read. If I wanted to watch the news, I'd turn on the TV. I'm surprised PJTV has as many viewers as it does... but then I've been surprised at the success of BloggingHeads, too. For me, internet video is for watching brief snippets of funny or interesting stuff, not to watch talking heads yammer about politics.

Ruth said...

I've lost a lot of respect for Insta and his links. I haven't counted but most are for PJTV and their bloggers and posts. Unpaid advertising I suppose. I refuse to have them take over the tea parties, Newt tried, Fox did somewhat, but at least they were promoted where they would not have been otherwise. My son and his wife attended in San Antonio. They were excited and thrilled. None of us are registered Republicans, but are more conservative than the Democrats so are not registered as anything except voters.

PatCA said...

I have tried a couple of times to access their info, even signed up (now receiving numerous email plugs) and have finally given up. There is no "there" there. But supposedly they are positioning themselves for web TV, so whatever.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Heh.

John Lynch said...

heh, Indeed.

John Lynch said...

Seriously, though, I'm pretty tired of instapundit being Tea Party Protest HQ. Reynolds is a better observer than advocate.

Joe said...

PJTV is one of the worse designed web sites I've ever seen. It was also coded by morons who somehow believed that using Java was a good idea. It doesn't help any that most of the videos should be edited to at least half their length.