• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

CR

Charlie Rose or Charlie Rose on Google Video

So I clearly have an obsession with news on the web, and I decided to do all my critiques on it because I feel like news is under represented here, and that it brings up issues regarding the potential for video on the web that run counter to the common wisdom (e.g. short, very flashy, etc.)

I strongly believe that long form content will begin to make a stronger showing on the internet, especially as services get better and video gets bigger. The internet also provides an avenue for in-depth coverage of topics that traditional television simply doesn't have the capacity to carry. Also, I believe that in more niche areas, people's attention spans will be far greater and they will be willing to sit and watch for up to an hour.

To me Charlie Rose is a good example of this potential. While his show has been running on television for almost 15 years, he has been on the web since 2004. His interviews with high-profile people in politics, business, universities and the arts are from 20 minutes to an hour, and every show lasts one hour. The show is flash streamed by Google.

I watch it religiously on the internet, because I can tuck it away in a corner of the screen, do other things, and glance down every once in a while, the whole time listening to the conversation. Which brings up an important point on the internet, just how "listenable" is your content? Is it still pretty viable even if someone isn't looking at the images?

It may not be for everyone, but I think that this kind of content has a strong future, especially if it targets specific groups with a deep interest in a topic.

I strongly suspect that you will see magazines like the Economist or Foreign Affairs start internet television initiatives in the future. MIT already has begun one. The age of long format long tail is coming, and to me, Charlie Rose proves it will find a loyal audience.