Philips Radio, Strijp-S, Eindhoven and other stories

I must confess a growing fascination in how radio is changing. As a media strategist, I have always learned a lot by looking at what happened in the past. You quickly discover that a lot of technology you think as "new" is infact decades old. It is just that it was too expensive to mass produce. The technology of storage and processing power were not far enough along.

This year is 100 years of Philips Research. I've been watching the way they tell the story of their inventions.



When Philips started manufacturing incandescent lamps in 1891, there was already a separate industrial research laboratory outside the factory; a concept virtually unknown elsewhere. In 1914, they opened a dedicated physics laboratory (the 'Nat. Lab.') in Eindhoven. Under the leadership of Dr Gilles Holst, the Philips Research organization became a major center of technical competence and innovation. Philips needed patents in order to protect manufacturing processes and designs. A portfolio of patents was also a useful bargaining chip when negotiating with manufacturers. Philips really understood vacuum technologies. Which meant that when radio

Did the history of PCJ and PHOHI for a BBC documentary several years ago. I think you'll find that the first royal broadcast by Wilhemina was on June 1st 1927. I find references to it in the New York Times in 1929. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rnw/7016951167/. I see the same photo marked as 1931 in your video (1'42") Philips was much earlier in inventing international sound broadcasting, doing the first experiments in 1924.  think many cities in the Northern part of the Netherlands need to look at how the industrial city of Eindhoven is rising from the ashes. The city was devastated in the 80's and 90's when the Philips company started closing consumer electronics factories and moving production East - first to Poland and then to China. In the end the company left altogether, building its headquarters near Amstel Station in Amsterdam. When the major employer leaves town things get very tough indeed. The irony is that Philips now makes most of its money from healthcare, exactly the industry that they didn't outsource to the East.

But now Eindhoven is clearly rising from the ashes, driving a new era instead of watching opportunities pass by. They realise that the Internet of Things is becoming the serious way forward. And that will need engineers, scientists, designers and storytellers to build wonderful, useful things.

Let Silicon Valley try to build a better Facebook. While Silicon Polder builds a better world.

architects now inhabit the old Philips Radio factory

A Factory reborn....

Crystal set in a shop window - not often you see that. And not that much to listen to on AM.

Downtown Eindhoven

Chances are high that Eindhoven will make it

Bit cold for a bbq....get 20 euro back when you trade in your old one.

Eindhoven has universities, entrepreneurs, financial institutions, and drive.

Dec 6th 1942 - RAF Bomber Command flies Operation OYSTER, a special raid carried out by all of the operational day-bomber squadrons in No. 2 Group. Their targets are the Philips radio and valve (electron tube) factories in the town of Eindhoven. Ninety three aircraft take part in the raid, 47 (PV-1) Venturas Mk. Is of RAF No. 21, RAAF No. 464 and RNZAF No. 487 Squadrons, 36 (A-20) Boston IIIs of Nos. 88, 107, and 226 Squadrons and ten Mosquito Mk. IVs of No.105 and No.139 Squadrons; 83 aircraft actually bomb.One of the Mosquitos is a photographic aircraft.

Eindhoven is well beyond the range of any available fighter escort thus the raid is flown at low level and in clear weather conditions. Bombing is accurate and severe damage is caused to two factories in the complex, which is situated in the middle of the town. Because the raid is deliberately carried out on a Sunday, there are few casualties in the factory but several bombs fall in nearby streets and 148 Dutch civilians and seven German soldiers are killed. Full production at the factory is not reached again until six months after the raid.
The bomber casualties are heavy: nine Venturas, four Bostons and a Mosquito are lost over the Netherlands or the sea. This is a loss rate of 15 percent for the whole force; the Venturas, the aircraft with the poorest performance, suffer 19 per cent casualties. Three more aircraft crashed or force-land in England and most of the other aircraft are damaged, 23 by bird strikes!

At one time, the world's largest radio factory was in Eindhoven, a city in the South-East part of the Netherlands. I've had the good fortune to explore it over the last couple of months. I'm fascinated by the old Philips radio factories which are gradually being turned into something completely different. I note that as you ride the lifts to the new apartments at the top of the building, the history of building has been painted on the walls going up.

MN.24.12.1981. Polish Martial Law on the radio

A very early Media Network covering what we could hear about the worrying developments in Warsaw. On December 12–13 1981, the Polish regime declared martial law, under which the army and ZOMO riot police were used to crush the Solidarity movement. The Soviet leaders insisted that Jaruzelski pacify the opposition with the forces at his disposal, without direct Soviet involvement or backup. Virtually all Solidarity leaders and many affiliated intellectuals were arrested or detained. The United States and other Western countries responded by imposing economic sanctions against Poland and the Soviet Union. With no Twitter, or even Internet at the time, one of the few ways of monitoring developments was to listen to Polish radio. 

This episode is hosted on the Media Network vintage vault

MN.04.10.1990 Inside Radio Berlin International

This is the edition of Media Network where we looked at the future of Radio Berlin International, the Voice of the GDR. We had visited the broadcast centre on Nalepastrasse on the banks of the River Spree. RBI was part of the much larger domestic operation, Stimme DDR. Many people don't know that the studios in Nalepastrasse 18-30 are now a cultural centre, often used by musicians for rehearsals. We also phoned the owners of ELWA in Monrovia, Liberia to find out what was next for the station. We also had an update from Radio St Helena's Tony Leo, one of the rarest catches from the South Atlantic Ocean. 

This episode is hosted on the Media Network vintage vault

Peter Sellers on Parkinson

Love this rare footage of Peter Sellers from 1974. Yes, 40 years ago. He looks at his happiest. Complicated man it seems.

Building on the old Dutch Hacker Campaign

The "hidden camera" stunt to trick unsuspecting people into believing a phone-app could hack into street and traffic lights is being used to promote the new videogame WatchDogs. The trailer seems to come in various language versions.

There is also a"making of video| , explaining the lengths the makers went to make the situation real. The most difficult thing I have to believe is that wait for a customer to come in to the shop with an entire camera crew and cast, back room technicians etc. 

It all reminds me of the Dutch Youtube video campaign from Max "the hack" who shows us how he can hack into of the famous Dutch drawbridges even when there are no boats around. Then he does a similar hack at Wageningen railway station, on the motorway and then with the window washing crane outside Microsoft NL headquarters in Schiphol Amsterdam (few times I have seen MacBooks in a Microsoft building when there are cameras around).  

The videos certainly went viral in 2008/2009. I think the goal was to get kids to think about IT as a cool career. But personally I don't think it worked as well as it could have done because anyone with the kind of knowledge they are looking for understands that those analogue railway station signs or the drawbridge have no connection with the cloud. So it is just a fake ad - and there is no real call to action. It could never really happen, no matter what you code. The final ad for the training school is also a bit strange.

Wonder why Philips doesn't sponsor Watchdogs because the Philips Hue system does allow you to play with the lights from your phone.

One more thing. Interesting that when I watch the old Max videos on YouTube, the pre-roll is the Watchdogs ad.

Dronehenge - BBC experiments with drones at Stonehenge

Watch as the BBC crew use their hexacopter drone camera to capture stunning images of Stonehenge. This was the making of video.

Vatican Radio dismantles MW towers

Vatican Radio has started to dismantle the transmitting station it had on Italian territory at a place called Santa di Maria di Galeria, northwest of Rome. The MF antenna Vatican which used to operate on 1530 kHz consisted of four towers. each surrounded by a cage of six ropes. The design gave a coverage of fade free groundwave propagation for up to 100 km from the Vatican site. Further signs that DRM as a technology is not going to fly.

View of the antenna farm until a few weeks ago.

Building of the medium wave antennas at the Vatican Radio site

Control centre at the transmitting station

Australia Network (TV) goes, and maybe Radio Australia

ABC managing director Mark Scott joins News Breakfast to discuss cuts to the ABC and the complete axing of the Australia Network, which he describes as 'extremely good value for money'. Read more here: http://ab.co/1jcmQ39





Concerns have also been raised about possible cuts to ABC Radio Australia's services in the Pacific.
Despite increased access to the internet, radio remains the most widely used media source, especially for remote Pacific Islands.The decision to axe the ABC's $220 million, 10-year contract with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to run the Asia Pacific television service, Australia Network, was widely tipped, despite the ABC being in the first year of the contract. Australia Network broadcasts to 46 Asia Pacific countries including the Solomon Islands, India and Papua New Guinea.

The Media Development Goals for 2030

BBC runs a separate charity called BBC Media Action, which appears to do similar work to the new Radio Netherlands Worldwide. I think it is useful to explore a discussion that has started in London.

In a series of videos and blog post, published on YouTube and on the BBC Media Action site, James Deane, Director of Policy & Learning goes into more detail about the biggest new challenge ahead for these type of international media organisations. This presentation was made in December last year at a time when the UN was talking about setting the next phase of the Millennium Development Goals (the current set run out in 2015)

These comments by James are taken from two entries on the BBC Media Action blog.

First - a word on why anyone should pay attention to the role of media in the post 2015 development framework. Much is already written on this, but the most succinct and compelling case was made by the UN High Level Panel Report on the "post 2015 development" goals framework.

The report urged a set of 12 new universal goals, the first of which is to end extreme poverty by 2030. Of the 11 other goals one is designed to "ensure good governance and effective institutions" key to which, the report contends, is to "ensure people enjoy freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent media and information". It also suggested a commitment to "guarantee the public's right to information and access to government data". 

Three Main Obstacles Remain

These recommendations have been seized upon by organisations like my own and there has already been advocacy by others.  Huge obstacles remain, three in particular:

• The first is the vanishingly small number of governments who actively want any mention of media in the framework. Countries like China, India and Brazil, see a “governance” goal as distracting attention from core development concerns and suspect the West of wanting to impose conditions on development assistance.  The governmental champions for this issue appear as thin on the ground as a coat of paint.
• The second obstacle is that of measurement.  Any goal featured in the post-2015 framework needs to have indicators against which to measure progress.  Creating a universally acceptable measure for “access to independent media” will be difficult.  This is an issue that I, among others, will be speaking on at the Unesco meeting. 
• The third obstacle is that “media” has a bad reputation among development actors, a reputation that is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. This is partly a result of so few development agencies having departments who support the media and partly a product of the growing co-option of media by political, ethnic, factional as well as governmental forces and the sense among some development people that too much media does harm.

People like James say that this kind of co-option is precisely why truly independent media working in the public interest, rather than governmental or factional interests, need support and should be better integrated into development priorities. He continues.


One problem which the media support community can more immediately help with is measurement.


The UN High Level panel report published last year suggested that a goal on honest and accountable government and effective institutions be established. A component of it, the panel recommended, should be a target around ensuring “people enjoy freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest and access to independent media and information". Another is to "guarantee the public's right to information and access to government data".


James argues that "one can’t honestly ask anyone to take this goal seriously until we come up with a clear system through which progress against the goal can be measured. This is fiendishly difficult. When we talked recently about this at a UN meeting in Paris, much of the conversation was taken up with the problems of measurement. We need to move quickly to some solutions. This is a proposal. If there are better ones, let’s hear them.

First some criteria

Any goal or target needs to be simple, easily understood by those it is designed to benefit, and credible to development actors, media organisations and, above all, people. It needs to be capable of being applied in all countries and all contexts. The whole purpose of the post Millennium Development Goals is to capture the world’s imagination. Any target or measurement indicator that fails to do this probably won’t cut it.

It needs to reinforce and if possible strengthen, rather than weaken, existing international norms and treaties, including Article 19 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

The process for measuring the goal also needs to command widespread credibility. That means it cannot easily be drawn from existing media freedom indices – like Freedom House - for the simple reason that even democratic developing countries like India or Brazil will not have a formal UN goal measured for them through a process in which they have no buy-in.

It needs – and here there are special challenges for anything concerning media and communication – to be change resilient and change relevant. The transformation of media and communication environments promise to be even more dramatic over the next 15 years than it has over the last 15. Facebook was founded in 2004, Twitter in 2006 and its Chinese counterpart, Weibo in 2007. None of them was even a twinkle in the eye of their inventors when the original Millennium Declaration was signed.

The indicator also needs to be comparable across countries, so performance of different countries can be held up to scrutiny.

I would also argue that measurement focuses on what people think. A central thrust of the post-2015 development framework is likely to, and should, focus on a people-centred approach. The measurement should focus on people, not just on the media.

There are other criteria (and similar criteria to these written in more technical language) which the UN has set out, but these suffice for now.

Most discussions to date on how to measure improvements in media or media freedom tend to involve a whole series of different indicators.

There are excellent examples, such as the UNESCO Media Development Indicators, but this lists many different types of indicator which are not amenable to being consolidated into something simple. They were also explicitly designed not to generate indicators that could create comparisons across countries. There are also datasets from people like the ITU on access to different technologies, including access to radio and television, but they don’t address whether media is independent or free.

So we need something new.

I think the goal should be something like, by 2030, all people on the planet enjoy freedom of expression and have access to independent media.

I think a second target, which also caters to broader issues of access to information, should be “all people have access to independent information which they believe better enables them to take a full part in their society and to make informed decisions in their own interest”.

The media target would be measured simply by carrying out nationally representative surveys asking people three questions which would in turn amount to a composite score.

• “Do you believe that the media in your country is free and independent?” 
• “Do you believe the media in your country works in the public interest?” 
• “Do you trust the media in your country?” 

First reactions

I put this proposal to the Paris conference and several problems were highlighted. 

It is a perception-based indicator and it is not clear that all people would have shared definitions or concepts of “free”, “independent”, “public interest”, or even “media”.  My research colleagues at BBC Media Action, who spend a lot of time working out how to accurately measure such things, point to similar concerns, but they and other researchers are very good at solving such problems. I’m not convinced these issues are insuperable.

As for the perception problem - I feel there is room in a set of indicators focused on advancing human progress for measures asking humans if they feel progress is being made. Perception measures are frowned on by much of the research community, but unlike other areas of development (such as reductions in maternal mortality), if someone doesn’t perceive themselves as having freedom of speech or even access to independent media, I would seriously doubt any other measure that suggests that they do.

I have my own concerns. 

It may be that some closed regimes where media freedoms are constrained may score more highly than much freer, messier, noisier media environments which are, in fact, playing a much more important part in, for example, holding government to account.

Certainly some of our research suggests that the more people know (through a diverse rather than a monolithic media landscape), the more people question and the less people trust. We may need to build in some additional indicators, such as plurality or diversity of media, although this immediately makes the indicator more complex. And, of course, adding a question like, ‘Can you speak freely in your country?’ cannot be answered honestly in a country without such freedom of speech.

Other approaches

There are also alternatives to this proposal, where a framework approach is taken – Article 19 has done important work on this.

This would bring together a whole set of indicators (eg where freedom of the media is enshrined in law, where journalist safety is protected, where regulatory environments provide for freedom of the media etc) and on balance I would prefer such an approach.

I am just very unsure how such a framework will be agreed for the post-2015 process, how it would be crystallised into a very small number of easy to understand measures, and even less sure that it would meet the criteria I suggest need to be met.

Two years on, what challenges lie ahead for Radio Netherlands Worldwide?

It is exactly two years ago that Radio Nederland Wereldomroep, the Dutch international service, closed down all its Dutch language radio broadcasts. That was shortly followed thereafter by all the other language departments. The organisation suffered a budget cut of 32 million Euro per annum, taking its income from 46 to 14 million Euro a year.

At the time, Radio Netherlands posted the truly superb video of the last 11 minutes of Radio Netherlands Dutch radio service, signing off with pride after 65 years of service. But that has now gone off line.

The "zero hour" moment at 20 hrs UTC on Friday May 11th 2012 was captured by an ANP press photographer and can be still be viewed here. The Dutch text tells you to hold down the left mouse key and then drag to navigate right and left.

ANP Fish Eye Photo 

Two Years Later

But Radio Netherlands Worldwide still exists, albeit housed in a smaller building next door. They've hired out the original plane-shaped broadcast centre to new tenants, the AVRO-TROS.

In order to get insights into the new mission - and the way it is being implemented, the organisation has gradually set up a new domain, rnw.org to answer the questions to those who are curious as to why, how and what Radio Netherlands is doing in the world these days.

It is clear that RNW is more of a co-production house rather than a broadcaster in its own right, relying far more on social media platforms to reach its target audience of young influentials spread across 18 countries.

They have started to post some of the results of their efforts.

Under why. the website lists the reasons for their existence today?

Without freedom of the press there is no freedom of opinion or expression. Media give citizens access to the information they need, to make choices and decisions that are important to their lives and those of others.

Media provide people with a platform to form and share their thoughts, ideas and opinions. They also contribute to increasing transparency and accountability and to combating corruption. They are one of the most effective checks and balances to misuse of government power.Only one in six people live in a country with a free press. The number of people worldwide with free access to independent media is at the lowest level in ten years.



RNW’s mission statement


RNW promotes free speech through independent journalism and the use of new media. We create thought-provoking content for young people around the globe and provide a safe space for them to tell their stories and exchange ideas.

Towards a better why

I believe the challenge RNW now faces is that this "why' statement is not really a powerful enough. It explains a situation and a possible solution. But it doesn't explain why their efforts are needed, and how they will impact peoples lives. 

And in this world where donors (in this case the Dutch government) want facts to justify everything, how will they really measure if they are successful and whether efforts need cutting back or further investment? Where are the targets?

In fact, this problem turns out to be a challenge for many organisations involved in media for development branch.

As part of the journey towards an answer, I think it worth exploring a report called the Media Map project published by Internews and the World bank and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I see a lot of the same conclusions that appeared in a World Bank report called the Right to Tell published ten years earlier in 2002. Except that this new report is far more comprehensive. It presents the evidence as to why there is a need for freedom of expression in a language that politicians understand. A free press benefits citizens. Media Map concluded:

Broad-based economic growth and political stability in Africa seem to be strongly connected to the presence of a free press. Free press countries: 

• Are less dependent on foreign aid 
• Provide a better environment for businesses within the country 
• Are more integrated into world financial markets 
• Are more likely to be democratic than countries without a free press, and have much 
• Stronger democracies overall. 

A free press is associated with higher literacy in Africa, and we found literacy to be a vital factor in maintaining democracy over time, globally. Thus, literacy, a free press, and democracy can create a virtuous cycle that lays the ground for improvements in governance, and in development overall.

I would argue that these conclusions also apply to many parts of Latin America as well. They must be music to the current Dutch government which is increasingly adopting the policy of trade not aid. I share the conclusions of South African media specialist Jeanette Minnie from Zambezi FoX. At a conference in Brussels last year she referred to the same report. Note that she concludes that the challenges apply to all media, new and traditional. “Old and new media development challenges in Africa”. The full presentation can be found here. Media_development_challenges_in_Africa_-_Jeanette_Minnie.pdf



Update: I will put the second part of this post into a new entry. Getting too long.

Eurovision Bong Contest

I wonder if there is a little joke burned into the name of the band "The Common Linnets". The Dutch entry in the Eurovision song contest (who ended in second place) did answer a viewers question. But did they tell the whole story?



The wikipedia entry says a little more: The common linnet (Carduelis cannabina) is a small passerine bird of the finch family, Fringillidae. It derives its scientific name from its fondness for hemp and its English name from its liking for seeds of flax, from which linen is made.

As for the song, it certainly reminds me of the Every Breath You Take from the Police. Same backing track?

Lifting the Lid on Velodyne's Lidar

In my search for innovation, I tend to look at high-tech startups rather than media companies like Google or Facebook. Robert Scoble has managed to track down an audio company which has made a classical pivot into a sensing company. Velodyne make the spinning sensors on top of the Google self-driving car.

Why zero margin cost will disrupt the internet of things in the same way it did broadcasting and print

Economic theorist and author Jeremy Rifkin explains his concept of The Internet of Things. Rifkin's latest book is The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism (http://goo.gl/4estV2).

Transcript -- We are just beginning to glimpse the bare outlines of an emerging new economic system, the collaborative commons. This is the first new economic paradigm to emerge on the world scene since the advent of capitalism and socialism in the early 19th century. So it's a remarkable historical event. It has long-term implications for society. But what's really interesting is the trigger that's giving birth to this new economic system. The trigger is something called zero marginal cost. Now, marginal costs are the costs of producing an additional unit of a good and service after your fixed costs are covered. Business people are all aware of marginal costs, most of the public isn't. But this idea of zero marginal cost is going to dramatically intimately affect every single person in the world in the coming years in every aspect of their life.

There's a paradox deeply embedded in the very heart of the capitalist market system previously really undisclosed. This paradox has been responsible for the tremendous success of capitalism over the last two centuries. But here's the irony, the very success of this paradox is now leading to an end game and a new paradigm emerging out of capitalism is collaborative commons. Let me explain. 

In a traditional market, sellers are always constantly probing for new technologies that can increase their productivity, reduce their marginal costs so they can put out cheaper products and win over consumers and market share and beat out their competitors and bring some profit back to investors. So business people are always looking for ways to increase productivity and reduce their marginal cost, they simply never expected in their wildest dreams that there would be a technology revolution so powerful in it's productivity that it might reduce those margins of cost to near zero making goods and services essentially free, priceless and beyond the market exchange economy. That's now beginning to happen in the real world.

The first inklings of this zero margin cost phenomenon was with the inception of the World Wide Web from 1990 until 2014. We saw this zero marginal cost phenomenon invade the newspaper industry, the magazine industry and book publishing. With the coming of the World Wide Web and the Internet all of a sudden millions of people, then hundreds of millions of people, and now 40 percent of the human race with very cheap cell phones and computers they're sending audio, video and texting each other at near zero marginal cost. 

So what's happened is millions of consumers became prosumers with the advent of the Internet. And so they're producing and sharing their own videos, their own news blogs, their own entertainment, their own knowledge with each other in these lateral networks at near zero marginal costs and essentially for free bypassing the capitalist market, in many instances altogether. This zero marginal cost phenomena, as it invaded the information industries, wreaked havoc on big, big industries. Newspapers went out of business; they couldn't compete with near zero marginal costs. Magazines went out of business. And my own industry publishing has been just wracked by free e-books and free knowledge and information.

But, you know, the strange thing about it is at first a lot of industry watchers said this is a good thing because if we give out more and more information goods free and people are producing and sharing it free, these freemiums will stimulate people's appetite to want premiums and then upgrade this free goods and information by getting more customized information. 

I'll give you an example. Musicians give away their music free when they started to see this happen hoping that they would get a big loyal fan repertoire and then their fans would be enticed to go to their concerts and pay premium in order to be there in person. And then, of course, we saw this with newspapers. The New York Times will give you ten free articles a month, freemiums, hoping that you'll then upload upgrade to premiums and by their subscription service. It didn't happen on any large scale. This was very naïve by industry watchers. Sure, some people have moved from freemiums to premiums but when more and more information goods are out there nearly free shared with each other, music, film, arts, information and knowledge, attention span is not there to then want to go to the premiums when you have so much available already in the freemiums.

My preferred train ride

Wish my intercity experiences across the Netherlands were as smooth as this train drivers view from the cabin of a Thalys train from Brussels to Amsterdam implies. But Dutch railways is definitely a work in progress...filthy at the moment because of another cleaners dispute.




My most frequent ride at the moment is down to Eindhoven. Here's the last 20 minutes of the journey. Beautiful countryside mind you - wide open skies.

Fred Wilson on the winners by the year 2020

Skip the rather lame intro of this morning's Techcrunch in New York. Expected a bit more of a show than just reading a few intros off an iPad.

But then comes Fred Wilson.

Speaking at today’s TC Disrupt conference in NYC, he predicted that the top three tech companies, instead, will be Google, Facebook “and one that we have never heard of.”

Why is Apple not in the list? Apple, he believes, is “too rooted to hardware,” with not enough tied into the cloud, and that will make it too much of a challenge for it to evolve going forward.

“I think hardware is increasingly becoming a commodity,” he said. “Their stuff in the cloud is largely not good. I don’t think they think about data and the cloud.” 

The interview with Techcrunch refers to this LeWeb talk in Paris by Fred Wilson.

I agree. I must confess I am starting to get worried about Apple. Not so much that they can't really come up with much that is new, but that while the hardware may get smaller and arguably more beautiful, the application software is getting worse. It started with Final Cut Pro. But now it is creeping into Keynote and other programs I have tried to use with the latest operating system Maverick. I love my iPad2. See no real reason to upgrade. Closed my iCloud account because I couldn't see a reason for it.

Why curation and context are so powerful - The Upworthy secret

I am always on the look out for great examples of storytelling. Increasingly that means content with a purpose. It is not necessarily a campaign. It can often just be a celebration of something beautiful. Like this video of East London.

It works because it mixes quadrocopter shots of Clissold Park, Regents Canal, London Fields, Victoria Park, Dalston, and Columbia Road with some impressive footage shot on the ground. It's a insight on a part of London I don't know, but would certainly like to explore now that I have been triggered. Thanks to filmmaker @HoneyWorth for inviting us on the journey - 78,000 views when I checked today. And comments on YouTube that indicate the video triggered memories for those who do know the area - as well as from people curious how the production was made.



I find myself exploring more and more content on-demand, less and less linear, to a point where I have to reset the clock on the TV on the odd-occasion that I use it. And my "radio" is an app on my iPad. It gets all the live stuff I need (usually from parts of the world where I could never hear the FM/DAB signal) and adds on-demand podcasting as well; my radio can't find the great programming that went out yesterday.

The people who influence me today are the curious curators, the people who find relevant content that helps me explain something or sparks me to go out and find that story myself.

So thanks to radio futurologist James Cridland for suggesting I watch the East London video, and that radio stations should consider making their own local celebration of why its great to live in a particular part of the world. I totally agree.

Turning Curation into a powerful business

I've noticed rather interesting suggestions appearing in my Facebook feed from a company called Upworthy. They use clever headlines to draw you in. But unlike the call to watch "awesome" cat videos which spam our lives (and make me reach for the "unlike" button immediately), the content that Upworthy suggests I watch has usually been worth my time. Like this new campaign from STC.

I note that Upworthy don't limit themselves to video - radio also creates great moments that are worth a wider audience. And they understand that great moments have a longer shelf life than we think. This edited version of an exchange between Michael D Higgins (who has since been elected as President of Ireland l) and Tea Party-fan radio host Michael Graham on the Irish radio network Newstalk 106-108 FM. It actually was recorded in 2010. But is that relevant? Not really.  (Note to Newstalk: the original recording on the radio station site is unplayable on an iPad because it requires a flash player.) 



So who are Upworthy? Crunchbase tells me there are a tiny startup based in New York, founded in 2012 by Eli Pariser and Peter Koechley. But, wait, they have raised 12 million dollars of funding. 

To do what?

To do this:

Upworthy is new social media outfit with a mission: to help people find important content that is as fun to share as a FAIL video of some idiot surfing off his roof.

Let's be honest: The Internet's been overrun with inanity, and all of us are eating it up. For example, here's a scientific study we commissioned about what comprises the online world:

At best, things online are usually either awesome or meaningful, but everything on Upworthy.com has a little of both. Sensational and substantial. Entertaining and enlightening. Shocking and significant. That's what you can expect here: no empty calories. No pageview-juking slideshows. No right-column sleaze. Just a steady stream of the most irresistibly shareable stuff you can click on without feeling bad about yourself afterwards.

For more, check out our mission statement from launch, which features an adorable kitten.

That all sounds nice, but I still don't totally get it. What type of thing are you?

We're a mission-driven media company. We're not a newspaper — we'd rather speak truth than appear unbiased. And we're not a political campaign — we're more interested in the powerless versus the powerful than in Democrats versus Republicans.

But we do have a point of view. We're pro-gay-marriage, and we're anti-child-poverty. We think the media is horrible to women, we think climate change is real, and we think the government has a lot to learn from the Internet about efficiency, disruption, and effectiveness.

And then there are dozens of issues where our curators disagree with each other — areas where there's legitimate debate to be had amongst well-meaning people. We try to encourage that debate by curating great pieces of content that represent different sides.

Who's your audience?

Basically, "The Daily Show" generation. People who care about what's going on in the world but don't want to be boring about it.

How can I help?

Oh, you're too sweet. You don't need to do anything, but since you asked, the most important thing you can do is to share content from Upworthy.com with everyone you know as often as humanly possible.

Can I trust your content?

Yes! We fact-check all of our content — that means we verify all facts, stats, and claims through major media sources, research papers, or government agencies. Some of what you see on Upworthy may seem unbelievable, but that's why we're sharing it with you, right?

Where are the comments?

Our goal is to foster a community of people who are focused on spreading ideas within their existing groups of friends on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, and wherever else. So if you've got something burning to say about one of the videos or graphics you see on Upworthy, share it on social media and start the conversation there.

They describe themselves as targeting the "Daily Show" audience, which explains why they often curate clips from Comedy Central. Like this interview with Malala Yousafzai, probably one of the most courageous women on the planet.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

I believe we need more media companies like Upworthy to find the important discussions on the Interwebs. Is it working? You bet it is.

PHILIPS M1X-DJ Sound System

\

Thought Philips had got out of consumer electronics. But for 400 Euro you can get this console to play DJ at home. Output is 80 watts RMS it is claimed. You'll need a recent version of the iPad or iPad mini. Doesn't work on the older connector. It was designed together with DJ Armin van Buuren.

Getting a simple message across

Clever, touching short story that seems to be going viral on Facebook. Nearly 3.9 million views is a great score in just a few days. Wonder how many people watch it until the end. "Look-up from your device and go and discover the real world". But I am curious as to who Gary Turk really is. A production company?. Update; 5th May. Views now at 14 million, partly thanks to Twitter users including the British tennis player Andy Murray and the American Idol winner Jordin Sparks, who boast more than six million followers between them. More in the Independent.

Stop killing Journalists. Powerful Point but poor messaging

Everyday should be world press freedom day, not just May 3rd. Interesting that a TV organisation like Al Jazeera would make a campaign based around a clock-radio. And I think it's time to talk about media freedom of expression, because it encompasses so much more than the printed press.

Don't get me wrong, the dangers of investigative reporting in many countries is vastly misunderstood by the general public. But that is increasingly because our vocabulary is changing. I don't those campaigning for better media freedom have updated their messaing.

But talking with people outside the industry, the reaction is often quite surprising. "1054 deaths globally in 22 years?  Compared to military and civilian deaths in conflict zones, that sounds like peanuts. This risk comes with the profession."

Of course this number doesn't include those people who assist journalists get the story, or the number of journalists in prison as a result of just doing their job. Attacks against journalists and other media actors constitute particularly serious violations of human rights because they target not only individuals, but deprive others of their right to receive information. Restricting public debate harms the very heart of pluralist democracy

Whilst the number on the left hand side of the "clock radio" public service message is clear enough, I'm not sure people can either read or understand the significance of the numbers on the radio dial. For me, the cause is very important. But they need to make a different kind of campaign that resonates with the public not just other journalists. The campaigns by organisations like RSF seem much more effective.



The weakest campaign, as usual, comes from UNESCO. The UN DG just delivers statements with a vague call to governments of the world. Just over 500 views on YouTube speaks volumes - this format is a very ineffective way of sharing an idea. Compare the statement from UNESCO with the the ten points mentioned in a declaration by the Council of Europe last Wednesday. I note that the Russian Federation said that it didn't feel the rights should be extended to other media, only professional journalists. Now there's a point I missed on RT!

1. Journalists and other media actors in Europe are increasingly being harassed, intimidated, deprived of their liberty, physically attacked and even killed because of their investigative work, opinions or reporting. These abuses and crimes are often met with insufficient efforts by relevant State authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice, which leads to a culture of impunity.

2. This alarming situation is not exclusively limited to professional journalists and other traditional media actors. As many intergovernmental bodies have recognised, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 34,² the scope of media actors has enlarged as a result of new forms of media in the digital age.³ Those at risk also include others who contribute to inform the public debate and persons performing journalistic activity or public watchdog functions.

3. The right to freedom of expression, to receive and impart information, ideas and opinions without interference is guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, the “Convention”); it constitutes one of the fundamental principles upon which a democratic society is based. The public watchdog functions of the media are crucial for upholding these rights and for the protection of all other human rights. Misuse of power, corruption, discrimination, criminal activity or human rights violations have come to light as a direct result of the work of investigative journalists and other media actors. Making the facts known to the public is essential for redressing such situations and holding to account those responsible.

4. Journalists and others who perform public watchdog functions through the media are often in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis the public authorities or powerful interests groups because of their role in informing the public and provoking debate on issues of public interest. Obstacles created in order to hinder access to information of public interest may not only discourage journalists and other media actors from fulfilling their public watchdog role,⁴ but may also have negative effects on their safety and security.

5. Attacks against journalists and other media actors constitute particularly serious violations of human rights because they target not only individuals, but deprive others of their right to receive information, thus restricting public debate, which is at the very heart of pluralist democracy.

6. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the role played by journalists in a democratic society confers upon them certain increased protections under Article 10 of the Convention. The exercise of media freedom, including in relation to matters of serious public concern, also involves duties and responsibilities. The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.

7. The European Court of Human Rights has established that States are required to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all persons, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear.⁶ To do this, States must not only refrain from interference with individuals’ freedom of expression, but are also under a positive obligation to protect their right to freedom of expression against the threat of attack, including from private individuals, by putting in place an effective system of protection.

8. Eradicating impunity is a crucial obligation upon States, as a matter of justice for the victims, as a deterrent with respect to future human rights violations and in order to uphold the rule of law and public trust in the justice system.⁷ All attacks on journalists and other media actors should be vigorously investigated in a timely fashion and the perpetrators prosecuted. The effective investigation of such attacks requires that any possible link to journalistic activities be duly taken into account in a transparent manner.

9. A favourable environment for public debate requires States to refrain from judicial intimidation by restricting the right of individuals to disclose information of public interest through arbitrary or disproportionate application of the law, in particular the criminal law provisions relating to defamation, national security or terrorism. The arbitrary use of laws creates a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to impart information and ideas, and leads to self-censorship. Furthermore, prompt and free access to information as the general rule and strong protection of journalists’ sources are essential for the proper exercise of journalism, in particular in respect of investigative journalism.

10. Surveillance of journalists and other media actors, and the tracking of their online activities, can endanger the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression if carried out without the necessary safeguards and can even threaten the safety of the persons concerned. It can also undermine the protection of journalists’ sources.

So what don't I understand? And what would be a better way of getting the message out?

You're Never Anonymous to Facebook

This is a particularly interesting edition of Tech News Today, because of the coverage they gave of the Facebook developers conference. What struck me most was how Mark Zuckerberg is using more and more terms borrowed from mainstream media. Facebook has to evolve into a trusted platform. To do so, it has to be very clear about what it knows. Facebook Anonymous means that users can play with other apps, presumably try before you buy. But you are never anonymous to Facebook. In countries with curious governments and almost free access to Facebook, this is offering citizens a false sense of security.