The downs of Utube, and the ups of file shareing.
What does it mean when technologies like cellphone cameras and YouTube allow one person to document and post an event like the UC Berkeley taser incident or the execution of Saddam Hussein?
I think that the ability to post such things is a bad thing for society in general. To put it this way, I believe that just because something can be done, doesn’t mean that it should be done. Saddam’s execution is such an incident in my opinion. I believe that no legitimate media outlet would have aired his execution had it not been released on the internet. Basically, I think that sometimes, the self censorship the major media outlets impose upon themselves protect the legitimacy of intelligent media. Basically, ask yourself a question, “do I really need to see Hussein hung to know he is dead?� Furthermore, because of his execution being aired, people can now use him as martyr. This is because there is an actual image that his supporters can use, and use to connect his execution to injustice. Because of this, I believe that the ability of people to just release such information is irresponsible, and can have consequences that far outreach the scope of posters’ intent. Intent that I believe tradition media has a better grasp on due to their experience.
In the case of the Berkley taser incident, I believe that this officer is being sentenced before he it tried (if he’s guilty he should be in jail). This is a fine example of where people are being tried in the court of public opinion, when they should be being tried in a court of justice…or at least by their own superiors.
Taser Case Continues to Reverberate. Nov. 22. http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/22/taser
Does it harm or benefit the entertainment industry when music videos are posted before they premier on MTV or when clips to old TV shows are uploaded?
I believe that having a song debuted before its’ intended start date is not major risk to the entertainment industry. This is because often, if people here a song and like it, they are often inclined to buy the album. This was outlined in detail in last week’s reading by Barlow, where he specifically outlined how sales have been rising over the last years, even with the onset of file sharing, and that he attributes this rise to the availability of their product. Therefore, I belive, as Barlow does, that having their product available, makes it more popular, and people will pay to hear it, and see the artists as well.
Barlow, John Perry. The Next Economy Of Ideas. Issue 8.10 | Oct 2000. Wired.com.
Comments
I agree with you (and the other posters) that a song/music video released earlier than intended doesn't hurt the entertainment industry. In fact, I think it actually helps them out. I have to wonder if they don't actually encourage it in some cases. More media/press equals free exposure for them. And we know what comes from that - more money.
Posted by: JuliaT | April 17, 2007 08:26 PM
I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon as far as to the benefits of a song/music video being released earlier than intended. The more you hype something up the better your product is going to sell.
Posted by: NickJ | April 18, 2007 10:57 AM
Hi Richard: I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that there is a market for usually taboo events like the hanging of Saddam Hussein and personal disasters. I noticed that although the networks did not cover the event, they had no trouble airing portions of the cell phone footage (albeit with grave warnings about its disturbing subject matter). The same holds true for the young man who sent his own footage to NBC between attacks at Virginia Tech. There will always be an audience for disturbing media. The bigger question is, should the new outlets show it if it is available. When are they obligated to do so, and when should they refrain?
Also, viewing executions is a cultural thing, I'm guessing. For some populations who cannot trust their media, or may not have very good access to it, proof of an execution is the only way to be sure it actually happened. In Iraq, a lot of people wanted to make sure this man had died, and that outweighed any need to provide him dignity or quiet in his last moments.
It was not too long ago that newsreel footage of the mutilation of Mussolini's body was sent around the world near the end of WWII, before there were warnings of disturbing images or ratings.
I wonder too, if with the advent of cell phone footage scooping the cable and network news channels, if executions will now be covered.
Posted by: Ramonac | April 22, 2007 11:01 PM