First Video: Was Snowden Right to Fear That Nothing Would Change?

As a result of a request from a producer at Al Jazeera, London, I produced my first video. Not sure if they’ll even use the clip, or if people outside the U.K. will be able to view the show anyway, but you can watch it here. (It’s a continuous take of just under one minute, as requested by the producer.)

Let me know what you think in the comments, either here or on YouTube. I will be playing with the lighting and set quite a bit before I get it right, as this was a first attempt.

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “First Video: Was Snowden Right to Fear That Nothing Would Change?

  1. Wonderfully concise and clear Amy! Can’t wait to share this.
    Gayle

  2. Couldn't B. Righter

    Don’t use a white background. Any normal office environment background that looks more natural would have been better.

  3. Good job! Ready for TV…

  4. As a general rule, I would avoid using phrases such as “in my view” or “in my opinion.” I recall reading (a very long time ago) an article by Ayn Rand in which she expressed similar sentiments. Any utterance or writing carries the implication that it is the opinion of the speaker or writer–no matter how certain the individual may be. So, such phrases are generally unnecessary, and you don’t want to undermine confidence in your message.

    The content of the message was remarkably expansive given the time constraint. It was a nice illustration of succinctness. But as an earlier commenter noted, the background in the video should have been less severe and more natural–perhaps suggesting an office or studio environment.

  5. skeen66

    Amy, given that Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet for Qatar, which is a terrorist state in alliance with Al Queda and other gangs, you shouldn’t be caught dead associating with it. It doesn’t matter what message you have to deliver, you’re being used. Remember that Qatar is where the five Taliban “generals” have been sent to by Obama, in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl, whose murky military record is coming into brighter light (he flunked out of the Coast Guard, for example). I would be hesitant to appear on RT, Putin’s propaganda outlet, never mind one controlled by our enemies. You’re helping to legitimatize Al Jazeera by agreeing to appear on it. This is gravely disappointing to me.

  6. Nicely done for a very short clip. I agree with Terry Brown’s comments, except I have no problem with the simple background (though I would keep the light switches out of frame). If you use a busier background, it could be distracting unless you use a long enough lens that it would be out of focus.

    The light on the wall adds a nice “spot” effect and sufficiently separates you from the background, but the light on you could be softer and more diffuse. Try bouncing the light off a piece of white foamboard or aiming it through a white sheet. You might need additional or stronger lights as either method will reduce the intensity. You can mitigate this somewhat by placing the light as close to you as possible without having it intrude into the frame.

    Lastly, I think skeen66 has a point. I, too, was surprised that this was for Al Jazeera. I have seen informative news on this channel as well as RT, and I believe it’s possible for both to present some “straight-up” reporting. On the other hand, sometimes I wonder if this might be a form of taqiyya, purposely making the woeful mainstream American media look bad by comparison, thus granting themselves an undeserved veneer of legitimacy. I suspect their Arabic broadcasts do not parallel their English-language reporting. It would be interesting to know Bosch’s opinion on this.

  7. I agree with Skeen66 and David above. I was surprised to read about you collaborating with Al Jazeera. Your appearance on their program serves to give them credibility. You may not realize it but I think this is what Ayn Rand would call “sanction of the victim.”

  8. Craig

    Edward Snowden Legal Defense
    Official Launch in Berlin: COURAGE Foundation

  9. You can delete this email address.

  10. While explaining the benefits of innovation of IT and Telecom companies in fighting mass surveillance of ordinary citizens, did Greenwald mention the possibility of fascist government intervention with grants, subsidies soft loans, (the carrots) etc. to help fund the financial burdens placed on tech companies to help pay for backdoor spy hardware and software in devices? It seems to me that would be the already well traveled road the government would take . In a stressed economy, I wonder what percentage of these third party companies would resist that temptation. Connecting the dots, I think in order to cure the cancer that is spreading, the extreme overreach of government surveillance and the destruction of our privacy, it must be addressed at its core .. the complete separation of the State and Economics and the protection of individual property rights.

    • Gayle, I agree and no, Greenwald didn’t mention that. The first “solution” he proposed was to have other countries put pressure on the U.S. After that, he proposed the tech solution. What I pointed out to him when I met him, briefly, was that he omitted the only real long-term solution: get rid of the third-party doctrine (which, as I’ve argued, would require rethinking the whole model for the legal protection of privacy).

      Thanks for your comment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s