A few weeks ago I received a DVD of the program, and am absolutely floored by the quality of not only the interview, but cable 15 programming in general. Hats off to Art Ford, and everyone involved with the ‘Conversations With…’ program.

The Interview

Throughout the mid 1970’s and early 1980’s presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization who prepared the debate formats and questions. In 1988 however the league abruptly pulled out of the debates, issuing the following statement:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

Following the departure of the League of Women Voters, the Republican and Democratic Parties formed the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is currently responsible for the softball ‘debates’ we are now exposed to.

It is frightening that essentially the exact same concern the League of Women Voters had in 1988 has indeed come to pass. However what makes it downright scary, is the fact that ‘New Media’ is becoming an accessory to the ‘hoodwinking of the American public’ which the League of Women Voters feared.

I have no doubt that some hotshot executive at CNN dreamed up their collaboration with YouTube in the debate process, thinking that it would be ‘new’ and ‘edgy’ (all that ‘New Media’ claims to be) and would ‘democratize’ the process. Nevertheless what it has done is create the appearance of democratization through allowing the American populace to ask questions via YouTube videos, while CNN and The Commission on Presidential Debates still retain absolute control over what is being asked, and how it’s being asked.

Have we learned anything new about the candidates from this ‘democratized’ debate? What difference does it make if I’m making a video of my question, or e-mailing, or calling in? For that matter was this debate any different than any of the countless ‘debates’ and forums we’ve already seen this year? Finally, when will the candidates be allowed to actually interact with each other, and speak for more than 1 minute about truly substantial issues… you know, like a real debate?

It strikes me as odd that in this media culture I can find any of a number of media zealots relentlessly prodding and debating a slew of politicians, figureheads, and spin doctors, on cable news, yet when it comes time to hear from the very people we elect to preserve our democracy, they are untouchable.

I’ve long chided YouTube, and ‘new media’ for that matter, as simply being a collection of silly video clips often involving hilarious acts of stupidity, and guys getting kicked in the balls in new and laughable ways. Nevertheless I don’t want this folly conflicting with democracy. When snowballs start asking questions at debates we have a serious problem, and it doesn’t help that we’re writing it off as being ‘democratizing’.

But at the end of the day does it really matter who is asking the questions? As long as the political parties are controlling their own debates how can we expect it to be anything but an extension of their campaign trails? The League of Women Voters was absolutely right in 1988, and the internet is simply making the problem worse.

CNN wasn’t always the ‘most trusted name in news’. In fact, in the beginning it was downright awful. Of course the news industry was a lot different back on June 1, 1980 when CNN first hit the airwaves. Below is a video of the first 30 seconds CNN spent on the air. See if you can spot where they got it wrong.

There are 3 major errors here that I would’ve called ‘detrimental’ to the network’s longevity if I had watched this in 1980. First of all, what is this program called? Whats the angle? If modern news has taught us anything it’s that there cant just be ‘news’. I just can’t have someone report on whats happening, I need, nay I demand, someone I trust to put just the right spin on things.

News is art, not science, which is why I need Bill O’Reilly or Anderson Cooper to bring me the news as only they can deliver, through hard hitting shows such as ‘THE OREILLY FACTOR’, or ‘AC: 360′. See what a difference that makes? Would you rather watch ‘the news’ or ‘WOLF BLITZER REPORTS’? The hard hitting title is the first indicator that hard hitting news is to follow.It’s not enough to simply give me straightforward facts, I need someone that I trust to interpret them, and tell me how I should feel about them.

This is why CNN made such a terrible mistake in having the anchors tell me their names, and move on to the news. Who are these people? Why are you telling me these things? Modern news has taught us that your news team is essentially a sports team. I don’t go out and randomly pick a team to root for. Nor do I root for a team in which I don’t know who the players are. Putting a man behind a desk doesn’t make me believe him. I have to believe he can, and wants to defeat the rival team. As the following clip demonstrates, modern, ‘hard hitting’ news understands that.

But what exactly is ‘hard hitting news’?Hard hitting news is about emotion. I don’t need to know whats going on, as long as I know that something is going on, and I should feel some way about it. However before my trusted news man tells me how I should feel, I have to feel that it’s inherently important to begin with - which is why CNN went so wrong with their inaugural newscast.After introducing themselves, the newscasters just move straight forward with the facts. Wheres the mood? Wheres the action?

The single most important component of ‘hard hitting news’ are the video lead ins. Without them I have no indication that news is important and/or emotional.The following is an international montage of the various fully pimped out bumpers CNN is currently using. They have learned quite a bit throughout the past 26 years. They have finally accepted that it’s not so important what news follows the video lead in, because the viewer already knows that CNN is trusted, powerful, and looking out for all of us.

With such an all powerful media god at the helm, who cares if what they are saying is true, or fair? We, the viewers of America simply want to know that important things are happening, and someone, somewhere cares about them.

…I feel like thats where we are with ‘New Media’.

At some point someone saw the decreasing popularity of radio, and network television, and the increasing popularity of the internet and made the inevitable conclusion that at some point they would collide into this ‘New Media’ concept. I will admit that some progress has been made with regards to this. YouTube and AppleTV have in some ways changed the way we view crazy home videos of adorable animals acting like humans, and middle aged men getting hit in the balls by various objects (we used to have to rely solely on Bob Saget and America’s Funniest Home Videos… ah Bob Saget, that guy cracked me up), nevertheless on the whole we still view television and movies in fundamentally the same way.

I recall reading the hit Bill Gates book ‘The Road Ahead’ back in 1995, which was full of bright eyed promises of digital convergence, yet most of it just hasn’t happened. Of course the future of computing was a lot brighter in 1995. ‘The Internet’ was capable of solving all problems, including making money appear out of thin air from investors through the mere mention of a hot new website. Nevertheless even in retrospect if you asked me today which is more likely: a seamless Windows Media Center PC in the living rooms of millions of households, or a way to sell pet supplies online at Pets.com… I’d take Pets.com in an instant.

So where does that leave us? We have all in many ways accepted this ‘New Media’ reality, yet we don’t want to make promises and have things blow up in our faces like they did in the 90’s. So instead, everyone just assumes ‘New Media’ is this powerful new reality that must be exploited. Unfortunately this leads to just more confusion and misunderstanding, for the exact same reason that Woody Allen films are popular: people pretend that they understand.

So at the end of the day we don’t care, and simply nod at the mention of ‘New Media’. We throw money at countless ‘new media’ initiatives, and write off any suggestion that perhaps it’s not coming along as well or as fast as we thought. But that’s OK… even Uncle Keith has figured out a way to stay alive all these years.

…there may be hope for new media yet.

[Pause for gasps]

Hopefully you’ve calmed down enough by now to allow me to explain. I really don’t like film festivals. Here’s why:

I think at some point in the past (prior to when I got into film making) the film festival was truly a local event. People from the community came to cheer on the local films, and get a sense of what was being made, and taking place around the country. It was a beautiful afternoon of the finest in independent film, and I’m sure someone hosted a barbecue afterward.

Then at some point someone decided that film festivals attracted attention, and money… for the festival organizers. At some point, a lot of festivals became essentially a way for the sponsoring entity to get into the newspaper, at the cost of the filmmakers involved. Let me take a moment here to make clear that this isn’t the case with all film festivals. Rather, I see a growing trend towards the festivals that essentially provide a room and a projector for an exorbitant entry fee, in which you are expected to bring your friends to watch the movie (hitting them with a high priced fee as well upon entry). It quickly occurs to you at this point that you could’ve rented a space and projector for just as much (or less in many cases), but never mind that - you’re in a film festival!

A few years ago withoutabox.com entered the scene. I was recently impressed with their new, clean, and edgy web design which seems to be a surface deep call to action for what I feel they presume the independent community is. Unfortunately this only reminds me of what it should be. On one hand Withoutabox has brought the independent a uniform and fairly simple method for keeping track, and applying to film festivals around the country. However on the other hand, it has in many ways contributed to the homogenization of film festivals all over. I feel much is lost now that I can attend the New York International Film Festival, and the Smithtown International Film Festival (by now the word ‘international’ being a part of a festival’s title is about as awe inspiring as the word used in front of the nearest airport) and see the same films, the same traveling film makers doing the circuit, and none of the locals for whom presumably the festival is for.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel however. As earlier stated, there are many quality festivals out there. Of particular note, I must credit the East Lansing Film Festival which I was thrilled to be a part of in 2005, as well as the Detroit Docs Film Festival, which after taking 2006 off is back in 2007. There are many others, however unfortunately my recent no shows on the summer circuit does limit my reccomendations. However I’m sure there are many others as well, perhaps even the few that my films have attended… but I haven’t.

Dear Lerone,
I read with interest the editorial you had written and placed in the Detroit Free Press. I couldn’t agree with you more!
I have taught special education for 27 years in the —— Schools all in an elementary setting. I have seen major changes in my years as a teacher. This year, our new superintendent had put in place his “vision” for our school district. It requires all teachers to “teach with fidelity” the reading series he chose. I am now told when to go to the classes I service and pull out my students and to work “with fidelity” on an intervention program from the reading series. I’m not seeing any major gains in their reading skills. It takes me a good 5 min to walk my students down and get them settled to start on our skills because my students don’t want to be there. They hate the books they are reading but I still have to have them read it. The programs we had in place that were successful, we were told not to use them. My special ed students in past years were in a full inclusion program. I worked right in the room with my students and teachers. Nobody ever knew I was a special ed teacher. This year, it is more obvious with the pull out programs.
I have seen the creativity disappear in lesson plans as well as students. There is too much testing. I have often said “I wouldn’t want to be a student today!” There is no fun reason to come to school - not when you’re tested every month. In our state, we’re looking for the fine arts dept at school to disappear since it isn’t reading, writing, or math tested! They’ve placed higher demands on our High School students - no time left for band, choir etc.
Keep on writing and producing! I appreciate your support.
You’re right on the money regarding NCLB.
Sincerely,
—— ——

I don’t know how to fix NCLB, and I probably won’t ever try. My goal however has been to promote open and honest discussion regarding the issue. There are, and have been many teachers ‘teaching with fidelity’ for many years. However if we can start legislating with fidelity we will all be better for it. Until then, all I can hope to do is blog with fidelity.

…and here I am.

One of the problems seems to be that everyone considers themselves to be an authority on art. I don’t mean black turtleneck, West Village ‘art’, rather - everyone has some concept of what they believe art is and should be. This isn’t a big problem in that art should appeal on some level to everyone, after all thats its purpose. However unfortunately many feel the need to not only tell you very frankly about the validity of the work you’re doing, but in your life as a whole.

For some reason it would be inappropriate for me to go to my friend’s job at an insurance company, or bank, or whichever professional locale, and give a commentary on the merits of the work they are performing, and the course their life has taken. However it is entirely appropriate for them to routinely criticize my work and my life, even if they have no serious qualifications to do so. I’m not being sarcastic here, this is the way it works.

I realize that the routine stability of a desk job which most artists envy (for the reduced hours and constant income simply to follow orders), can be interpreted by those occupying such jobs as ‘boredom’. The converse is also true as well. I’m sure that many sit at their desks, with their salary and benefits dreaming of a life with the ‘freedom’ of an artist as well. However I only ask that people realize one thing about that lifestyle: it is very hard to enjoy that ‘freedom’ as it comes with the cost of impossible amounts of hard work, fear, and misery.

It’s not the work that creates this environment. Artists do what they do because they enjoy it. However it’s a world in which creating the actual art is only the beginning. Consider that if I’m working at XYZ corp., and my boss, or even myself is charged with taking on a risky yet potentially rewarding project for the company. The team works constantly for several weeks, and finally produces a fine product - which flops. Best case, they try again. Worst case, they get fired and collect unemployment until finding another job. The artist on the other hand has no such luck.
The great artists are those who constantly take on risks. The greater, the better - as far as the work goes. I’ve all too often seen artists in every mode simply stop when something works. I understand it, we all long for success and stability - and thus I don’t frown upon it. Nevertheless you must constantly wonder about the heights such an artist would’ve reached otherwise. Unfortunately the ramifications of the chances artists take are literally life and death. Failure literally means food, clothing, and housing, and there is seldom a safety net. For this reason it is nearly impossible not only to stop at 5pm (or any reasonable hour short of ‘working yourself to death’) but it’s very difficult to sleep at night. This being considered the best thing one can give to a working artist is support and encouragement, unfortunately thats rarely what happens.

The majority of startup companies in this country fail within the first 3 years. Nevertheless the people, nay ‘entrepreneurs’ who start such firms are not looked upon with the universal disdain in which artists are. Obviously, the successful artists are accepted as ‘visionaries’ (meaning the check to the gallery has cleared) so they are excluded. Rather, the working artist is constantly looked down upon. There seems to be merit in running say a new heath club, yet saying you’re an ‘artist’ seems to imply you spend days listening to jazz records and smoking pot.
I realize that people are usually looking out for the interests of those they care for, and thus in many ways their discouragement can be seen as a sign of affection. On the other side of that there are many who have believed in you from the very beginning despite the times you stumble and even fall. But the most shocking thing you realize when you take on this career is not the doubters - you always saw them coming, and with a thick skin you can learn to ignore them. The thing that really hurts are the ones whom you expected to be in your corner, only to find them curiously absent.

…but when the premiere rolls around, everyone always knew you’d make it

I kid, I kid… I was going to speak about production anyway - I just needed a crafty introduction that would make it seem like I had thought this through a bit more than I in fact have. Nevertheless I have already raised an important question about television programming. How does someone in charge of programming choose which programs to air… and when?

One of the great things about public television, is that rather than derive their entire schedule from the PBS feed, they have a great deal of flexibility in their schedule. What that means is that the 349 individual PBS stations out there air 349 variations of PBS programs, local programming, and independent programs. For the independent filmmaker this is a dream.

All too often the filmmaker is faced with the frustration of depending on a single executive, to give a simple ‘no’, thus barring the program from that mode of exhibition/distribution. In the case of PBS however, a single network ‘no’ can be parlayed into 349 different ‘no’s’… or if you’re a ‘glass half full’ type, 349 possibilities to get the ‘yes’ that will make the difference.

In early 2004 I was faced with the nasty reality that PBS wouldn’t pick up my first full length film ‘No Child Left Behind’. Considering all of the sacrifices I had made for that film, this was especially devastating. It was as if my beloved friend had died, and I went through all of the steps accordingly:

Denial - ‘There must be a mistake… they admit it’s a good program, nevertheless they claim it doesnt fit their ‘content priorities (another rant for another day)’

Anger - ‘How could they do this? I’ve spent the last year living like a homeless man and they have the nerve to say no?’

Bargaining - ‘Look, I can change the program to fix whatever it is thats being objected to (I actually wrote a letter to this effect… didn’t work)’

Depression - ‘I’ve just wasted an important chunk of my life on this failure of a project… looks like all the naysayers were right after all. Why didn’t I just get a ‘normal job’ after college?’

and finally…

Acceptance - ‘You know what… this can’t be the end of this crazy adventure. I’ve spent too much time, effort, and money on this thing to let it die here.’

After all of that, I was finally able to move on and use the public television system to my advantage. As you may know, much of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ film takes place in Detroit (where I grew up), and New York City. The first thing I did after my initial rejection was to bug the heck out of the poor head of programming at WTVS, and finally after a few calls, emails, and letters he agreed to air the program. Lots of time, film festivals, college presentations, coupled with some luck, and friendships finally paved the way for WLIW, New York to not only air the program, but to distribute it nationally to other public television stations. This interestingly enough was after an initial ‘no’ shortly after the airing in Detroit, nevertheless miracles do apparently happen.

All is not wonderful in public television. Although at this point any station has the ability to say ‘yes’ to the program, and grab it off the satellite free of charge, this unfortunately doesn’t bode well for the filmmaker. All of the publicity we were able to do in Detroit and NYC in order for the film to find the film’s audience is infinitely more difficult when theres no concrete way to tell which stations are airing the program and when.

In fact, the best way in which I can find out when my own program is airing - is to do an internet search for it. Using this method I was able to find that the program will air in Utah, Texas, Michigan, New York, and Maryland in the next few weeks.

Naturally, people often contact me under the assumption that I am the first to know when and where the program will be available next… unfortunately I am in fact the last. Just a few days ago I was informed that the program recently aired in Philadelphia… thats news to me. In any regard it’s merely one of the many frustrations of television distribution. For that matter I don’t have any greater luck with the random programming of another film of mine ‘Aardvark’d’ on The Documentary Channel.

…perhaps I should just buy the DVD.

Take the iPod for example. In the beginning the iPod, iTunes, and the iTunes Music store were heralded as a way to crush the record label’s grip on the music industry. Offering fair pricing to all, and ridding consumers of the need for homespun file-sharing networks, it seemed like a win-win situation for all involved. But in the end have things really changed? Is there some sort of newly found independent recording revolution underway as a result of Apples intervention into the way music is sold? If so, I haven’t witnessed it. Rather, I simply see the Apple Computer Incorporation as a new middle man.

The barriers to entry in the music business are still the same. To have your music sold on iTunes you still have to go through record labels. Only now two different hands get to dip into the $1 per song pot before the artist sees a share of the profits. Furthermore, you can rest assured that Apple will make no effort to promote your music through the iTunes music store unless you’re signed to a major label and/or your music is pulling in serious money. So in the end independent musicians are left with the same line as independent filmmakers. “We’ll be happy to take your money… but bring your own crowd”.

Of more concern to me is the current big business interest in social networking. One of the few promises of the internet that actually panned out, was the ability to mobilize entire internet communities at a grassroots level. People from all over the world with similar interests could communicate with one another with a level of simplicity never before seen. This was perhaps most evident during the 2004 presidential primary, when Howard Dean was able to raise an amount of money from the internet that was unforeseen by anyone. The entire world took notice…unfortunately.

I say this because whenever certain people take notice (mainly big business) the consumer always seems to end up with the short end of the stick. Big business has seemingly realized for the first time since the .com boom, that large sums of money can be made through the internet. So I warn you now, run! Hide! Batten down the hatches, for the movement that is coming is going to be dirty, and it’s going to hurt.

It will start with promises. Promises that these companies will serve small consumers, and independent groups far better than before. We have seen this already with video. Not only Google Video, which I have spoken of far too often, but with Apple’s new foray into movies which has caused Amazon, Microsoft, and others to respond accordingly. However it doesn’t stop there. They don’t stop there.

Note the recent moves by big business into social networking - the very core of free speech on the internet. With sites such as MySpace and Facebook selling out to the highest bidder there is much trouble ahead, and not even our Federal Government can help us . The airwaves theoretically belong to the people of the United States, yet our government has no problem turning a blind eye as corporations buy all of the stations. Why would they not do the same for the internet? And once these companies own our means of communication what will stop them from beginning to censor it?

So I beg of you; run! Hide! Go now! This is it, this is the end. Find yourself a bunker and seal yourself in!

…unfortunately when you come out, the situation will be all too familiar. Internet media will be owned by the same people who own print and television media. Perhaps there will be new faces, but the agenda the same.

And free speech… will be a thing of the past.

I love how a year or two after everyone starts using a technology, computer program, or website, the mainstream media falls in love with it. If the media gave say, Africa the attention it gives YouTube and MySpace, there would be millions of people not dying and/or starving. Nevertheless, I digress.

The current social networking/file sharing phenomenon is truly amazing. All of the sudden it seems the great web/entertainment convergence we were promised in 1995 is actually happening. I can think of funny things I’ve seen on TV, or even haven’t seen (like a kid getting stuck in the net of a basketball rim as he tries to dunk from a trampoline), and voila - there they are on YouTube. Now I can’t watch much of my favorite television programming on the Internet just yet (probably because the broadcasters have the same ‘deer caught in the headlights’ looks on their faces as the recording industry did a few years ago), nevertheless watching assorted clips on YouTube can occupy me for hours. It’s like the best of America’s Funniest Home Videos without Bob Saget’s lame jokes, and smug sense of superiority.

Now where does Google fit into all of this?

Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps I should have given Google the benefit of the doubt from the very beginning. Maybe they genuinely had envisioned Google Video as a platform for the independent film community to find distribution. Perhaps even the sudden disappearance of independent film from the main Google Video page, in favor of titles such as ‘Fat Kid Tries to take a Dive’, and ‘Preacher Farts’, were merely a response to the YouTube phenomenon. YouTube found a model that worked financially, and we all know how large corporations love to play follow the leader.

There is still some upside to the service, however. Even if your video isn’t featured on the main page, usually meaning it doesn’t contain images of someone getting hurt, a striptease, or body humor (using all 3 gets you extra points), Google will still host your video. This means that the bandwidth limitations that have led to limitations on the amount of video available on your website are no longer a stumbling block. In fact, as we speak I’m uploading bits of the Boondoggle video library to Google Video, for use on the Boondoggle Site.

The current video quality leaves a bit more to be desired, however beggars can’t be choosers. I would also bet money that someday Google will implement a way to search through the countless hours of video footage people are uploading, better than anyone else (that is what they do after all).

So cheers to Google Video. Although its not quite the service they promised at launch time, its still a good service. For independent producers, however don’t open up that bottle of champagne just yet… you’ll just hear the same old line here that you will at many other venues. We’ll host your screening… but bring your own audience.