--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Sinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The "revolution", to me, is that the walled gardens of old media no > longer exist - they no longer decide what is "good" and what > is "garbage" (BTW - how many "good" shows have been on TV over the > past few years?!?!?). With the Internet, the people deciding what is > good and what is garbage are the millions of viewers on hundreds of > different sites across the Web.
Absolutely. There's a ton of horrible programming on television. Somehow, someone decided that these shows would be financially viable, so they made it to a time slot on a channel somewhere. You're right. Nobody can stop someone from posting something to YouTube or to their own web site. That's a revolution as far as the media itself, but as Justin states, not necessarily a revolution in QUALITY programming. Though nobody said that was anyone's goal, to create quality work. A lot of people just want to express themselves and imagine that people are watching their shows > The fact that it is extremely easy to create, edit, and share video > across the Web is technological evolution. The breaking down of > barriers is a revolution. Yes. Besides the clarity of the video on a video iPod, what really got me about videoblogging was the fact that if you post something with a permalink on the net, it STAYS there. If you make a television program, short of syndication, people are either never or RARELY going to see it ever again. > It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that we keep the methods of distribution > of video OPEN and INTEROPERABLE, or we leave ourselves open to the > same control over media distribution that has happened in the past. > > Regards, > -Frank Agreed. :) -- billcammack > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" > <BillCammack@> wrote: > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Kownacki" > > <jkownacki@> wrote: > > > > > > In regards to the battle between mediocrity and its right to > exist: > > > when Michael Verdi says: > > > > > > "What's crappy or mediocre to one person is pure gold to another. > > > There's room for it all on the internet. And that is the whole > fucking > > > point! You don't have to be "good" to be on the Internet and > nobody > > > can make you watch the stuff you don't want to watch." > > > > > > ... I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "rallying to the defense of > > > mediocrity" -- not BECAUSE Michael (I'm not singling him out -- > he > > > simply made the last, most applicable comment) is a fan of > mediocrity, > > > but because he believes in the power of the individual voice, > > > regardless of that voice's relative quality. > > > > > > Yes. There's definitely different "camps". Some believe that > > internet video is striving to achieve quality. Others believe that > > just the fact that someone can post a video to the internet makes > the > > posting of that video worthwhile, or, in other words, it doesn't > > matter whether it sucks or not, the value is the ABILITY to express > > one's self, which didn't exist before other than on public access > > television. > > > > I didn't read the beginning of this thread, but I > think "mediocrity" > > is a friendly way to say GARBAGE, because that's what REALLY needs > > defending. :) If something's mediocre, it's passable. It's not so > > bad. What needs to be defended is why people should have the > ability > > to post absolute GARBAGE to the internet. The defense is the > freedom > > of expression as well as the ability to "change the channel". > Also, > > Verdi's right that what's garbage to one person is gold to another, > > making it impossible to appoint someone the gatekeeper over what > > should and should not be posted. > > > > Garbage and mediocrity are definitely being defended, but the > question > > is "What difference does that make?". Ultimately, regardless of > how > > much garbage is produced, nobody's going to fund that garbage or > > advertise on that garbage. Advertisers are going to look for > > productions that they think have quality and the ability to > attract, > > sustain & grow a viewership. The garbage is only going to exist > where > > it exists, just like ACTUAL garbage does. :D Actual garbage is in > > landfills and dumps or in sewage pipes and other places where > people > > don't have to see it or smell it. Both "camps" can attain > > satisfaction, because those that don't want to deal with garbage > don't > > have to see it, and those that defend it can always find servers > that > > will host and archive it. > > > > > As I said earlier, the individual voice is, by and large, not > very > > > interesting to the great majority. For every interesting POV in > the > > > world, there are hundreds or thousands that are merely > regurgitating > > > overheard information. Not that that matters to a lot of us, who > > > believe web media is important primarily because it lets us all > be > > > heard equally -- even if only by the 10 people who find us > > > interesting. > > > > > > Absolutely. Even if you look at YouTube, there are hundreds or > maybe > > thousands of people that have those > > sit-in-your-house-talking-to-the-green-light-on-your-iSight video > > shows, and only a handful of them are "stars". The situation > remains > > as above. They can be archived for those that want them to have a > > voice and ignored by those that don't care. > > > > > However, when Michael then says: > > > > > > "Some of my favorite videos are the ones I've made of my family > or ones > > > that my friends have made. I doesn't matter if they are > considered > > > good or worthwhile. What matters is that they're there. THAT is > the > > > revolution." > > > > > > ... that essentially makes the case that this revolution is > merely a > > > gigantic holding tank for crap that appeals to 10 people each. > Call > > > me a cynic, but that doesn't sound like much of a revolution; it > > > sounds like the preamble to one. > > > > > > hehe Well, I guess it depends on what it's a revolution OF. If > it's a > > revolution of the ability to NOT be blocked from speaking your > mind or > > making videos that are permalinked on the internet, I say it is. > If > > it's supposed to be a revolution of content that's going to make a > > difference, I say it isn't. This seems to be a discussion over > > whether the ability to utilize technology is the point or whether > the > > ability to create non-garbage content is the point. > > > > > Meanwhile, profit doesn't matter more than people, as Ron Watson > > > accuses Keen (possibly correctly) of believing. People always > matter > > > more than profit -- and, without people, there can't BE profit. > But > > > until those of us creating social media are creating media that > people > > > actually WANT to see -- and by "people," I mean more than 10 -- > > > there's not much of a revolution to speak of; there's just a > bunch of > > > people making mediocre videos and putting them online, believing > that > > > their ability to do so somehow constitutes an paradigm shift in > and of > > > itself. > > > > > > This is a good point. Most of the videos I've seen are because *I* > > searched for them or someone whose opinion I'm interested in linked > > them. There are thousands upon thousands of podcasts and > videoblogs > > that I've never seen and never will see. The ability to put videos > > online does not necessarily equal the ability to have your videos > seen > > by a substantial amount of people or the ability to make any > > difference at all. It's the familiar "If a tree falls in the > > woods..." scenario. > > > > > We can also each build a spacecraft, if we try, but that > possibility > > > alone doesn't constitute an aerospace revolution. > > > > > > hehehehehe oh man. :) > > > > > Please don't confuse the ability to create media with the > > > revolutionary act of creating media that MATTERS. Just because > any of > > > us can pick up a camera (or a microphone, or a keyboard) and > send our > > > voice out into the internet, that doesn't mean that WHAT we're > saying > > > / doing / creating IS revolutionary. > > > > > > Yet. > > > > > > However, when the power of individual POVs (which, yes, DO > matter) > > > combines with a worldwide upswing in relative quality -- i.e., > when > > > people who have the ability to use this media actually use it to > tell > > > compelling stories that transcend expected boundaries and appeal > > > beyond their initial target audience of 10 -- THEN we'll be well > on > > > our way to a revolution. And then Andrew Keen will have a much > bigger > > > monster to contend with than simply the possibility of one. > > > > > > Onward and upward. > > > > > > Justin Kownacki > > > > > > This is the Wild West right now. The windows of opportunity are > wide > > open. This is why you're seeing production companies popping up > left > > and right making "professional" video for the web. This is why > > they're making 60frames or whatever to see what they can do about > > bringing "stars" to the internet. > > > > The question is WHO'S going to benefit from this "revolution"? Is > it > > going to be the skateboard-falling video posters? Is it going to > be > > the YouTube character-based comedians? Is it going to be the > > independents who have been doing this since 2004? Or is it going > to > > be the Hollywood Studios that figure out how to utilize and > monetize > > the medium? > > > > What happens when net neutrality fails, and serving videos becomes > > prohibitively expensive for anyone that doesn't have that sort of > budget? > > > > Meet the new boss... > > Same as the old boss... > > > > -- > > billcammack > > >
