Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Of course, it's easy -- not to mention unfair -- to criticize a television network before it has even turned the lights on. David Neuman, the network's programming chief, responds that Current's revolution is not about politics or political leanings but about openness to feedback and contributions from its viewers. Current's decision not to focus on social-issues programming is deliberate, he says. He explains that Current's shows, called "pods," will cater to young people's broad interests: The schedule will include political and current-affairs programs, but it will also feature entertainment, sex, and lifestyle shows about parenting and managing your money. "We're going to democratize the medium of television," Neuman says, "but that's 'democratize' with a small d."
A "pod," Neuman explains, is a short show built around a theme. Each pod has a title and a subject. "We have a pod about spirituality called Current: Soul, or a pod about technology called Current: Tech, and a pod about money called Currency, and a pod about sexy people called the Current Hottie," Neuman says. "It's a systematic and quite lengthy list of subjects that are of interest to our audience."
Each pod will feature short nonfiction films built around the pod's theme. At first, Current itself will produce many of these videos. But Neuman says that when the network goes live, slightly more than 20 percent of the video shorts it broadcasts will be those submitted by viewers -- and, as the network grows, it hopes to show even more viewer-submitted short films. Neuman says that he's been pleasantly surprised by videos people have sent to Current. "It's turned out to be more, and better, than we expected."
Current has posted some of its best video submissions on its Web site. And they do cover a wide range. Some are funny, some are compelling, a couple are brilliant, and a few are boring and banal. Tamara Straus wrote recently in San Francisco magazine that because the films are short, many lack narrative depth. That's one problem; another is that many appear safe. For instance, a video about homelessness in New York reveals that being homeless is no fun. Viewers might wish it presented a novel, unpredictable opinion on the issue, or a deeper sense of outrage, or anger. It's difficult to find a non-mainstream point of view in the videos; politically, they stray neither too far left nor too far right. Just now, there's little on Current's site that would seem out of place on ordinary TV.
Neuman disagrees with the suggestion that Current is safe. The network, he says, won't shy away from uncomfortable or controversial videos, and, indeed, he expects people making such films will send them to Current. For one thing, Neuman argues, Current pays well. The network will pay $250 for a first film, a rate that can rise to $1,000 for people whose work Current uses frequently. The money, Neuman says, will give filmmakers an incentive to look for stories that go uncovered by other media, especially in places where American news organizations don't have much presence. He pointed to the work of Yasmin Vossoughian, an Iranian-American filmmaker who, on a recent trip to Iran, documented the sex lives of young people there. (Her film, "Coming Out: The Youth of Iran," won second place in a recent Current contest.) Current, Neuman says, stands a good chance of finding such films in other parts of the world. "Wouldn't it be fantastic if we had citizen journalists in Gaza right now, or Tel Aviv or Damascus or Beirut, seeing it with their own eyes and showing it to us?"
But even if Current does manage to attract controversial videos, some critics argue that the network may have an overriding incentive to keep a lid on the most outré stuff, and to keep what it broadcasts close to the mainstream. Like every other TV channel, Current will need advertisers to stay in business. Gore and his fellow investors -- who include, among others, several tech-biz heavyweights like Bill Joy, Bob Pittman and Rob Glaser, and Hollywood Democratic Party insiders such as Warren Lieberfarb and Bradley Whitford of "The West Wing" -- have sunk more than $70 million into Current TV. It's only natural to expect them to do everything they can to get the money back. Additionally, the economics associated with a new television network -- or, for that matter, any new, large media property -- aren't attractive; profits, if they ever come, usually materialize only after years of losing money.
So to attract advertisers, Current will need ratings. For ratings, it will need content that, while perhaps edgy or even controversial, is not so off-putting, demanding or radical that it turns people away. In other words, as Jeff Jarvis, the popular blogger and new-media consultant, points out, television, even cable TV, is a mass-market medium. In order to survive, it needs to tell stories that appeal to many people. And the moment Current heads down that road, much of what it airs will look very similar to traditional, old-style TV.
Current insists that advertisers will not play a role in what the network decides to broadcast. When Gore and Joel Hyatt, Current's CEO, created the network, they made it plain that "we'll have control over the editorial product and advertisers won't," Neuman says. "There's a church-state relationship there, and we are confident that advertisers will embrace that agenda. We haven't made any compromises in order to suck up to advertisers."
