That's the only thing that worries me too........there's merit in ensuring that the ONLY place on the net where you can be guaranteed to see official releases from the executive branch of the US government, is a site that's controlled exclusively BY the government.
The minute a video goes up on whitehouse.gov, I'd have no problem with them posting it at YouTube as well, but the "official" site should be the whitehouse site, and the administration should make strains to emphasize this point, lest their message get corrupted at YouTube. On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Purposefully releasing presidential video to a single source just seems > (IMO) not quite above board. > Secondly there's nothing preventing a creative videographer/hacker from > posting doctored "official releases". > > I'd rather see it come from whitehouse.gov, with a disclaimer saying if > you see it anywhere else it's not official. > > Erika L. Walker wrote: > > I still don't get it. Radio make money because you have to buy a spot on > the > > radio to make your broadcast. > > TV makes money every time you buy a spot. > > So a website can't make money? Huh? > > > > You still make no sense. YouTube is going to have a much bigger audience > > than the white house website, doesn't matter what kind of campaign you > throw > > at it. > > > > As far as authenticity. That's easily covered by disclaimers and > educating > > the public to know that unless it was posted by the OFFICIAL Obama > youtube > > member account, question it's contents. Blah blah blah. > > > > That aside ... fakes will exist in all forms everywhere. Not going to > matter > > where they are posted. Coming up with this as an excuse to not post on > > youtube is ridiculous. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Exactly. > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I'd think that Google, owning YouTube, would stand to make a fortune > off > >>> of the advertising. (IMO) The president(elect) would be better served, > by > >>> posting streaming video to the White House.gov site. > >>> > >>> Erika L. Walker wrote: > >>> > >>>> It's got nothing to do with Google. What does Google have to do with > >>>> > >> Obama > >> > >>>> using Social Networking to his advantage? > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280566 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
