Main

April 25, 2007

A Quick Odeo How-To

First, go to the Odeo Studio page. It’ll look like this:

Odeo Studio page

It’ll think for a minute, and then ask permission to access your computer’s mic and camera:

Odeo - Mic Permission Box

Click on “allow”, of course. Then record your podcast. When you’re done fiddling with it, click the “save” button. The next screen you see will look like this:

Odeo1.jpg

Fill in all the necessary fields, and make sure you choose a podcast for it to place it in — that’s the very last pull-down menu. Then click “Save” again. Odeo will generate some code for you:

Odeo - Code to Paste

Copy and paste this code into a new post in MovableType:

Odeo - Pasting Code into MT entry

Title it, put it in the correct category, and then hit “Publish.” Et voila! A podcast embedded in the blog! Like this one, which is a few seconds of me wondering why in the world I haven’t done podcasting before, since it’s so easy.

Have I ever mentioned to you guys before that I’m rather deaf? Because I am. (Not so deaf that I don’t also teach in regular, f2f classrooms, though.) I think that’s been a mental barrier to podcasting for me, since the sound quality on amateur podcasts is often poor (as it is on this one), and therefore harder to understand. It’s much quicker for me to read text than it is to listen to something. I’m glad this exercise has made me push past that.

April 22, 2007

GodTube- Broadcasting Him

When I was reading the paper this morning, on the front page there was an article about GodTube.com, a new site that "Broadcasts Him". It is a site that reaches out to nonbelievers. Check out the article http://www.startribune.com/614/story/1136125.html

April 20, 2007

The Landlord...SOOO Funny

April 19, 2007

Not perfect but shows the future!


This Apple TV isn't new compared to other converters like slingbox but for those of you who are unfamiliar with this item it's a transition into only needing one device for all your media. I am showing this because currently my computer time coincides with my television time and eventually I believe we will have the best of both worlds. I can't wait to just get one huge screen and be able to do everything on it.

Don't Hit That Taser One More Time!

Well I'm not going to lie. I definately missed the boat on this story in the fall of this year. I had never seen any images of the student at UCLA receiving such a questionable confrontation with the law. It is amazing to think of trying to recreate that account had it not been for amateur video shot from a cell phone. Time magazine hit the nail right on the head when they named us the people of the year for 2006. I could have never imagined the networking capabilities we have today even 5 years ago.
When we dealt with intelectual property and the concerns associated with it I think of situations such as the one at UCLA. If we weren't allowed to share user created media along with mainstream media we would blind ourselves from truly seeing the whole story. I see the hand held video shot of the student as he begs for the officers to stop and the gathering of students surrounding him and I imagine myself in a similar situation. These shots aren't coming out of the tv screen this is REALITY.
The issue of reality is confronted with the story of Lonelygirl15. People would argue that the directors manipulated their audiences by using an person assumed to be real and creating a fictious show. This is no different than reality television. I know that The Real World isn't a real life example of how those people live their daily lives. Issues are created and presented by the producers who want to make a profit. We see through Web 2.0 that anyone can make news or create news if they want to. Maybe now we will finally be able to present each other around the world with the truth and not the truth that is presented to us by the media.

I want my money! (Pearl in "The Landlord"

I do not see anything wrong with technologies like cell phone cameras and YouTube documentation of events. I think that if people have the time to browse the internet for these types of things, then more power to them. On the other hand, I do not think it is fair for something private to be published to the web without some type of approval from the people that might be in it. But, this brings us back to the copyright issues on the internet. An anonymous person could post an image or video and pretty much be breaking some type of law, but not even know it. Grossman says, “But that's what makes all this interesting. Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail.� There might be a breaking point, an instance, somebody going over the edge of breaching privacy rights or copyright laws and the internet could fail. I do not know how, but that is the nature of the beast. Everyday the internet is evolving, both in its usage and content, so we cannot possibly predict what will happen as a result of this “experiment..�
As for the lonelygirl portion, I am intrigued! After watching the interview with the two producers, I thought to myself, “What a great idea!� I think it is just another way the internet has changed how easy it is to publish what you create—at a very low cost. It really delivers what people want to see, and immediate feedback is given.
The taser case did not seem that relevant or interesting to me, but I do think what happened at Virginia Tech (the cell phone video where shots can be heard) is very disturbing but also very interesting. I guess I do not know where I stand on the issue of taking a video of an event without people knowing. It really does seem wrong, but at the same time, people should know that someone could be doing it!
My video has less to do with technology and more to do with how the internet can carry out comedy skits never thought possible or that don’t have a place on TV or a movie. This skit has Will Ferrell in it, yet it really focuses on the little girl (the daughter of the other man in the video) and her young talent. I think that it is pretty sad that they get her to swear, but it may just be a sign of the times. Additionally, I just think it is a plain old funny video! Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVcjPuVnbFU

April 18, 2007

My video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahlduhEXQY

YouTube; the new CNN???

Within the past few days, I have had a completely different view of YouTube and other video displays that has been brought up because of the massacre at Virginia Tech. If it wasn’t for the latest technology we would have not been able to view many of the sights that were posted on YouTube curtsey of videos on cell phones. It was posted on CNN as well as MSNBC, however it is also posted on YouTube which will attract more of the younger crowd which they would think to go look there first. As I was reading each of the readings, I felt as though the same postings would have occurred if we had the same technology that we have in the present day.
As stated in the Time article, “Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana?� (Grossman) However, more and more each day, conversations revolve around Facebook and the “latest� YouTube video that was posted each week. So people do now go home and instead of watching TV they watch the clips from the night before because they were unable to watch the particular show that they had planned on watching. However, on YouTube, anyone can post things which in the long run skew with reality. I know numerous friends that are on YouTube as well as create videos for YouTube. I personally have never watched the hanging of Saddam Hussian but I have heard that it has been altered with and there are many different versions so which one do you believe- If you believe any of them.
With the Virginia Tech incidence that happened this past week, there will be many videos posted of what “really� happened however, with news articles I always just look at CNN of MSNBS for the real versions such as the video clip that did make it on to YouTube as well that a college student took from his camera of the building where there are shots being taken. This type of video I can handle because unlike the Sadam video, it was aired on credible sites as well as YouTube and nothing was actually shown. My next post is the particular video because I feel as though without this video pieces of the puzzle would not be solved.

Look what the net has done for gaming!!!!

I am showing this because with the ability to post in youtube and google. The professional gaming industry has exploded. More in particular "Halo 2". Yeah sounds kind of geeky, but the point is marketing that has taken place and turned this game into a national event and brings us the tournament action to us if we could not make. On other sites they actually pipe in the games live!

Little is Better than None

Personally, I believe that the use of new technologies such as cellphone cameras that can be used to document anything, be it something controversial such as the execution of Saddam Hussein or the UC Berkeley taser incident, is of greater benefit to society than something such as the evening news. The benefits of such technology are of benefit for the same reason in which they are controversial: they can uncover things that a regular news team is unable to uncover. Much of what is shown on the news is either shot after the fact, or videos sent in by someone who did happen to see something. In the case of the UC Berkley taser incident, it would have been impossible for footage to have been captured if it hadn’t been caught on a camera. Sure, the students who were there would still probably get quoted in a newspaper or two, or perhaps even be interviewed on the television news, but the impact that it has on the readers and viewers is not the same as being able to actually witness the events that took place. Karl Roves quote that “Not all the events Tuesday night can be heard or viewed on YouTube,� (Thacker) is really misleading, as without YouTube and the videos shot from a cellphone, none of the events would be able to be heard or viewed.

You Tube Trash and Treasure

Hi, folks. This video is not rated PG 13 or higher, but some of you may find it offensive all the same. I have been intrigued about how technology has affected our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In some ways it has been great. Soldiers can send videos to loved ones and vice versa. E-mail records everyday life consisely. Photos can be transmitted in an instant. No longer does a soldier have to wonder what her child looks like.

The advent of video phones and digital cameras allowed the Abu Ghraib scandal to be discovered almost immediately. However, as in the taser case in UCLA, that does not mean footage always carries context. With every claim of atrocities comes a lot of cross accusations and finger pointing. What exactly did the student for Iran do to attract the police in the first place? When footage of the Rodney King video made it to every news station in America the LA police officers were tried and found guilty before they were charged. So indelible were those images that there were riots in many areas of LA when the police were found not guilty of excessive force several months later. Jurors maintained that the events leading up to Kings beating warranted the force, but the public who saw the footage couldn't buy it.

Context, context, context. However, with Abu Ghraib there seems to be a dearth of rationalizations, just an abdication of responsibility--why are the lower level soldiers being tried first--I guess that is how hierarchies work. In an earlier time, we probably would not have heard of these conditions and this abuse. Is that a good thing? Can we have too much information about a sensitive subject? During WWII, John Huston (I think!) made a docmentary commissioned by the War Dept. that ended up never being shown as it was considered too 'dark' and 'anti-war' for American audiences. If that is happening now to some extent, is that all righ? For example one does not want to see an exploded carcass on the cover of the newspaper every day, however we do hear about it.

There is an argument that Congress should not be attempting to direct foreign policy, in part because the process of government tips our hand to the enemy.

Lonelygirl seems to go a lot deeper that I originally gave it credit for. It almost looks like an occult version of '24.' Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but didn't the sophistication of mulitple narrators kind of give the story away? Also, she was a little too hip to be considered a nerd. Finally, if one were in the suffocating grasp of a cult, would your parents really let you buy a web cam?

To the future in vlogging and Beyond!!!!

I can definitely appreciate Grossman's article if only for the reason it helps point out the progression that we have made not just as individuals or community, but globally. Stated, "We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy. " There was quite a bit of negative instances that took place in 06, but our strides in cyberspace has brought in a new era. I cannot really look at cell phone cameras and our ability to relate our video findings to the public with just a few clicks negative. People will always find ways in which to use new found technologies or ways of communicating in a not so healthy way. I am glad a student/ students were able to capture the UCLA incident on camera. This was not a harmful thing. It brings on a different aspect that really gets people involved. Yes I believe there are instances that have been posted where it can be harmful to a person or an orginization, but harmful to the entertainment industry? Not necessarily. I think you can classify these in almost two completely different genres. With the abilities the net is providing were are still making foward progress even if the content is questionable. If not it might keep people on their toes more. I am not trying to project this statement as one of paranoia, but as of awareness with those keen on watching for creative opportunities. A prime example can be seen with the new hit "Lonelygirl15". What an idea! Now figuring out how to properly monetize and create profit presents a slight challenge, but what doesn't in this day and age. The two gentlemen who produced this series are tredding in uncharted territory so to speak. The world of TV and the silver screen will and has to change with the internets ever expanding population and the freedoms that come with it. I don't find anything wrong with a music video airing or being viewed over the cyberwaves before MTV gets their paws on it. This what the internet brings and it will become even more prolific as technology expands and the internets user base continues to grow exponentially.

Mythbusting new Fingerprint Identification Scanners

This video is a clip from one of my favorite shows, Mythbusters. It involves the attempt to break into a door that has a fingerprint Identification scanner on it. The fingerprint identification scanner will completely change many aspects of our everyday lives. Eventually, all computers will have one for purchasing goods online. However, this video shows that they might not be completely fool proof.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZncdgwjQxm0

YouTube....oh SWEET YOUTUBE!!!!!!!!

First of all, let me start this post off by saying that I was completely disgusted by the treatment of the student. I showed all of my roommates, and they were actually really upset; I can only imagine how I would feel as a student who went to UCLA. However, this point shows exactly how powerful of a tool youtube.com is becoming. The combination of cell phone technology and youtube has given anyone the ability to be a producer, and many more things are being caught on camera and being broadcasted over the internet. Years ago, this would not even been an issue, because there would be no proof. However, today because of the videos taken by students, there was an investigation held on the matter in which there was evidence that couldn’t be denied.

This amazing tool affects all aspects of society, and is not just being used for human rights. Instead, there are many instances where people are showing things without any regulation, and I can see this as a breeding ground for material that is overwhelming for many.

As far as the entertainment industry is concerned, I do not believe it affects them negatively at all. So what, a music video is released on Youtube.com a couple days earlier than it normally would be. All this does is give the video more visibility and buzz. I feel the same way about old television episodes being uploaded. While many feel that this hampers DVD sales, I disagree. It is no guarantee that youtube will have the program you want, and with the consistency that people will be able to watch it anytime, whenever they want; which is the core value of many DVD owners. Also, I believe that it allows the shows to gain visibility by allowing people to see shows that they normally wouldn’t see. If they end up liking what they’ve seen, the will be that much more apt to tuning into the program during its regular televised time and place.

I am a little slow today

From my entry above, here is the embedded video....I think

Continue reading "I am a little slow today" »

Life isn't fair

Joichi Ito of Creative Commons discusses the inequalities where editing of multimedia is becoming easier with the popularity of video and music services. The opportunities by remixing music and video on a personal level isn't as protected as written publications. Independent film makers are able to modify video without fear of copyright problems. There is a site where you can send in your video and the people will edit and modify your original video to create a humorous video.

I thought this video from YouTube was pertinent in our discussions in the recent weeks.

Hopefully the video will be embedded.

Continue reading "Life isn't fair" »

Media Transforming the Telling of Events

The link below is one of a man beating another man at a Pizza Parlour in Akron, Ohio in 2005. The footage is of a fight that broke out after a woman tried to cut in line at the Pizza place. The man who she cut in front of made a comment to his fiance on his cell phone about how it would take longer for them to get their pizza. The lady became insulted at the comment and started to yell at the man. She then spit on the manager of the restaurant after he tried to get her out of the parlour. At that moment, the woman's boyfriend stepped in and started to hit the man got cut in line and was sent to jail for 4 years.
I think that such footage really is only necessary in a court of law. There really is no benefit to having anyone watching it. The only other exception would the plaintiff's and defedant's families so that they would know what really happened.

Technological Communication Transformed Media

I liked how Grossman described the process of how people on the web tend to reach out to one another and help out without wanting something in return. I agree with how he said "We're ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad, and Boston, and Beijing" (Grossman). I also agree with him how he said that we are "seizing the reins of the global media, for founding, and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating pros at their own game" (Grossman). I thought his hypothesis very interesting about how this is the way that global communities will be established. I think that this plays really well into participatory journalism because this type of journalism thrives on the cooperation and collaboration of ideas from people all over the world. Wikipedia is an example of participatory journalism that has its advantages and disadvantages. One on hand, the fact that so many people are willing to take part in putting together an informative document without putting their name on their sections, shows that it's important for people to make a contribution to the world. On the other hand, the fact that Wikipedia has a huge traffic flow increases the likelihood that some information posted may be false, whether intentional or not.

I think that having cell phone pictures, and using other sorts of technological devices to capture incidental moments is a great thing. As in the example of the UCLA student being tased by the cops, I think that it was great that it was caught on camera. I think the fact that people can actually show others what happened without the confusion of "he says, she says" is really great. It shows what clearly happened. I have to say that it's a different feeling watching the incident on YouTube happen and reading about it from the articles we read this week. The fact that I was able to hear and see what happened made me feel a lot worse for the student that got tased. The fact that such a small device as a cell phone can capture a police tasering a college student would be viewed as evidence in a court of law. It is also a great way to show moments that capture great injustices. Instead of speculating about what happened, people are able to actually witness it for themselves. I also don't see anything wrong with watching clips of flims or music videos before they premiere. The fact that there is such a high interest in those features before they premiere will only help fuel its success.

Me, Technology, Monday.

Not me but that's how I felt when my laptop started blue-screening on me a few weeks before my wedding. That was unpleasant ha ha.

Sorry about it playing when you load the page. For some reason I'm suddenly having trouble connecting to Youtube and Google Video.








YouTube, Replacing the Boob Tube

I think that Flinders is right on when he states, "(his show) illuminates the future of television" (Wired, The Secret World). Because of time constraints, commercials, and the lack of quality shows, I hardly watch TV anymore. I usually download (upload?) my favorites like Lost and Heroes and then log on to YouTube for some mindless entertainment. Quite often my friends will forward me a clip or a "hybrid form of storytelling" (Wired, The Secret World) compliments of YouTube. My life is busy, so YouTube and TMZ give me the quick fix that I need.

Back when I lived in LA (1998-2002), YouTube didn't exist and my friends and hair clients didn't have a medium to showcase their work. Now when I type in a search on YouTube I can find my friend the casting director's commercial, my hair client the writer's sitcom pilot, my friend the editor's movie trailer- even the music video that I did the hair styling on.
It is a whole new ball game and it looks like Flinders has covered all his bases by partnering up with a lawyer who gives free legal advice on copyrights and false advertising. He also seems to know how to play Hollywood execs and has a pulse on what his audience wants. Whether or not Lonelygirl15 lives a long life, he will be remembered as a pioneer of the new age of Web broadcasting.

It is amazing to me the things we can capture on our cell phone these days. It'll be interesting to see how the videos, "shot with cell phone cameras" (Inside Higher Ed) will hold up in court. While I believe the security guards are guilty of abusing the student, I do see how a video that only shoots a portion of the scene can be misleading and by posting it nationwide, creates a huge and somewhat unfair bias. But hopefully the truth will prevail, video or no video, and justice will be served to Duren.

YouTube and Movie Trailers



I have a friend who edits movies and produces movie trailers (he lives in Los Angeles and works at the Ant Farm, www.theantfarm.net ).
I have posted some of his work (found on YouTube)- and have included an article from March 2006 about YouTube’s role in the motion picture industry.

YouTube Promotes Movie Trailers

YouTube and Deep Focus, a digital agency to film studios, have agreed to promote movie trailers on the popular video portal, ClickZ reports. The first trailer to be so promoted - Dimension Films' "Scary Movie 4" - has been viewed nearly half a million times in less than four days, more than on Yahoo, where it's been offered for two weeks or so. For now, no money has exchanged hands; instead, YouTube benefits because it is seen as copyright-friendly, and the studio is seen as working with rather than fighting a peer-to-peer site.


Users will be able to embed the trailers in their blogs, MySpace profiles and other webpages, and the studios will be able to measure how many times the trailer has been viewed no matter where it resides, because YouTube provides the number for all to see.

YouTube had some nine million unique visitors in February, second only to MSN Video's 9.3 million, according to Nielsen/NetRatings numbers.

-http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2006/03/17/youtube_promotes_movie_trailers/

DO YOU HAVE THE ENERGY AND PASSION?

“The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.� (Grossman, Lev. Person of the year.)

Although information can be shared wrong, technologies such as cameras, YouTube or cell phones can be beneficial for those who spend more time online, rather than watching television. It can also be dangerous because of video manipulation and videos of Saddam Hussein’s death. Overall, as mentioned, I agree that it is definitely “a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution.� (Grossman, Lev. Person of the year.) One thing, it has definitely allowed people to take control and express themselves, which is through their videos. When it comes to the entertainment industry, it can affect it either way as well. I don’t personally use YouTube either (I know, I’m WAY behind everyone! � ) but I can see how it would affect music videos posted early, because then people would depend on YouTube to search for new videos, rather than watching MTV/BET or whatever it may be. It could also harm TV shows as well in the same aspect, but I would say less severe because people are having the opportunity to see a show they recently missed.
Here’s a perfect example of an OLD TV show clip that someone thought was quite funny to put up. It’s Heather Miller falling at the end of her dance on Dancing with the stars. I love this show and didn’t get to see this clip, so I thought this was great!



myphone? no...iphone

This video talks more about the iphone. I figure since it is expected to come out later this year, I feel I should show people more about it, like the interview says, this will revolutionize cell phones. It will be the ultimate media device. It's just amazing just how much technology that they have put in this phone. Not only is it an ipod, but it's a cell phone that is touch screen and syncs in with your computer as well! Crazy!

How a journalist lost his job because of Youtube

You may not know that but France is electing a new president next week end. It's a pretty important time for the country after 12 years of Chirac, we'll finally get a young one. The campaign is very hard in France and I have a great example of the importance of people filming with their cellphones and putting videos on Youtube.

As it's in French, I'll explain and translate everything before you can watch it... Alain Duhamel is a very famous and important political journalist in France and also the director of the politic section of the first television group. During the campaign, he has been invited in a University in Paris to give a conference to some students in political sciences. Students could ask question, and the whole conference wasn't supposed to be filmed. At one point, a student asks to Duhamel what he thinks of one of the candidates, and the journalist answer that he likes him (well, the answer is longer than that and that's what it meant) but also that he would vote for him.

A student was filming with his cellphone and put that online :

The journalist has been suspended the day after, for the whole time of the campaign.

I think this is a good example of what people would never get exposed to, and which finally reach them thanks to random people and not the "normal" media.

Congratulations to us.

I'm not generally a big fan of the Time magazine and I rarely agree with their person of the year. However, I bought the magazine this year because I liked the cover, I thought it was a good idea. Instead of the traditionnal picture of the man of the year, they put a "mirror" on the cover, and a big YOU.
The article is right on many points. I like the idea that the great men from yesterday now have to work together. In other words, the great men don't exist anymore, or we are all a great man together.

However, as Grossman says in the end : "Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail." This technology is very new for everyone and we are now enjoying the good parts of it. At the same time, I'm sometime afraid of what the Web 2.0 could become, and we had an example in the readings this week.
If I agree to say that thanks to people posting of sorts of videos on Youtube, we may be exposed to information that would never be given in the traditional media (the Taser case is an example), I don't really like the fact that everyone tend to consider himseld or herself a journalist or a photograph or whatever. It's the same problem that I described with Wikipedia a few weeks ago. Everyone is not a specialist, everyone is not a journalist, and making a video does not automatically mean delivering some good information.

Videos are easy to manipulate (and I don't mean to manipulate on the computer with a program), and the truth can be easily "worked on". That does not mean that people should not photograph or film what they see, it's often very interesting, but viewers should not trust ALL the things that they see. The example of the Lonelygirl is a good one. If here, it's not very dangerous and funnier than everything else, it's an example of someone manipulating thousands of people making them believe that they really watch a video blog. If something like that happens in another field (politics...), it woul be much more problematic.

You Tuber's beware......What you R doing may end up on there!

I beilieve that people documenting and posting events that happened all over the world is something that is apart of life when a new technology is introduced to the public. It means that anyone at anytime and at any place can record anything that is going on and post it for others to see. Just recently with the VT incident, a student recording things on his cell phone and the media got a hold of it to show viewers. The media wasn't there at the time when it happened, and if others where there and took video of an incident, I think it's ok. It's just crazy how many people log on to YouTube on a daily bases, I got my friend hooked on YouTube when I told him you could type up anything on there and you can watch a video for it. Like the Grossman article says, "The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution. (Grossman, 1).

I think sharing clips of old tv shows and other shows is ok. It's media, it's supposed to be seen. I can see that people put money into the shows for you to watch on tv and it might be a form of stealing, however corporations are learning that there shows can be manipulated into another form of media for others to watch for free. They are paying attention to this and ABC, NBC, and others offer free full shows to watch online after they air, and even offer other things like behind the scences type of things as well, I think this is the way to go.

I think that music videos that are played before they air doesn't really hurt the music industry too much. MTV only plays music videos late at night or during TRL or something so I don't think it makes a big difference.

Linking this YouTube topic with what I read outside of the reading is from the following website, http://www.projectopus.com/node/5202...here is a little snipit from it, "Until lately, videos were always seen as a promotional tool for the song, and therefore the industry didn't see sharing of videos as any sort of threat. The viral aspect of videos was encouraged to help promote the sales of the songs themselves. Recently, though, the videos have found value, mostly proven with Apple selling digital music videos at $1.99 as part of the larger move which also includes TV shows. (Abbott, 1)

The Changing Medium of Media

It's hard to argue that the media has changed significantly, even in the last 5 years. As we can see clearly by Time Magazine's crowning "you" as person(s) of the year, the inception of the internet has had a similar effect on the media has it has on the music industry, in the that it puts the means of production in the hands of viewers. However, in the case of television, things aren't quite as widespread. It seems that something the internet has done across the board is put more control in hands of people rather than forcing consumers and viewers to go through media outlets. It's interesting that these means are brought about at a time when the media seems to be increasingly criticized for its ability to really cover news without regard for corporate or broadcasting interests. It's clearly already had a huge impact with the Saddam Hussein execution video and the UCLA Library tasering incident. Now people are able to find their own news and spread it around, rather than reacting to news presented to them. In this regard, I think the transformations that the media is undergoing are positive ones. It’s interesting to consider how this shift in control to the users will affect media some years down the line.

This is a CNN report about the verichip, an identification device that goes inside beneath your skin and holds identification and medical and various other kinds of information on it. Actually it relates to matters of privacy we mentioned before: all the information is on a website and it doesn't appear things are very secure.It strikes me as kind of offputting, but judge for yourself. There's a lot of videos that contend the chip is for complete control of the nation and may actually be the "mark of the beast" mentioned in the Bible book of Revelations (those seemed pretty heavyhanded, so I posted this one instead).

Embed with YouTube

Clever....ok no. Anywho, here is the video that I am posting. It is a video that someone took the time to play and record the 1986 World Series Game between the Boston Red Sox and New York Mets. The lineups, pitchers, plays, and the call of the game are almost perfectly aligned. Oh...they did it on Nintendo. This is both amazing and makes me wonder how people have so much time on their hands.

YouTube Video Fun

Here are two videos I found on YouTube. The first video is more serious and the second video is more for fun, but both videos deal with intellectual property.

"Patent Wars"

"Beat Police"
“This video was removed from Youtube on 2nd February 2007 because Viacom claimed copyright on the content. Viacom withdrew this claim on 9th February and the video has therefore been reinstated.�
value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GGXD6Sz9im4">

Does "Deadwell" toe the line?

I've found that it's been really impressive how the use of video clips has really grown over the last five years. In the past, I usually avoided trying to play videos online because it took forever to load them. At home I had a simple dial-up connection, so that made it difficult. The computer network at my old workplace had barely enough bandwidth to play clips in a quick manner.

Also, there were not too many websites that actually specialized in hosting people's amateur video clips. Most of the time I would try to skip the video that was included with a news story for fear of freezing up my connection. But now, I have a cable internet connection and have a lot of fun seeing what crazy ideas people come with on web sites like Youtube and Google Video. It really helps when I want to take a small break from homework. I can look up a band that I like or I can see what funny animal videos have been posted.

Now people can even record video on their cellular phones and digital cameras. I've recorded little videos with my wife's small camera. It's fun. At my wedding last year, my dad's video camera broke after the wind knocked it over. He quickly though to use his small digital camera to record the ceremony. You can see his arm holding up the camera in a number of photos that people took. He had to change batteries and a memory card during the recording of the event. What a guy! It was kind of funny.

Then there’s the other type of videos that bystanders record. Nowadays normal citizens have more of an ability to capture events on video. In the case of the UCLA tasering incident, I think that this is a great help. I hadn't seen the video before yet, and I was shocked at the way the police officers behaved. From what I've gathered about that event, I think that those police officers were very much out of line. They have training to deal with people so they don't have to use force. From what I saw, they resorted to tasering that poor guy right away. They then proceeded to taser him after he was handcuffed. Isn't that a little excessive? I saw at least three officers there. As Paul D. Thacker reported, "NBC reported that students claimed that Tabatabainejad was stunned with a taser at least five times." Was that really necessary?

They could have easily carried that guy out of there after putting the handcuffs on him. How sad. I'm big on catching people abusing their power. I believe that the students that were in that library did a great thing in recording that event and posting it online. I think that recorded video evidence can be much more convincing to people. Especially when the accused party is someone that is supposed to be upholding the law. Web sites like Youtube can be very useful tools when trying to spread the word about something important. But then there are the more questionable reasons that people post videos online.

I was surprised to here that someone had posted the hanging of Saddam Hussein online. Usually you'd think that kind of event would have heavy security to prevent just that from happening. It almost seems symbolic of the United States' bungling of everything over there (Just my opinion). Then there was the video that was posted that showed masked men killing their hostages. How sick is that?? Showing such gruesome videos online is really wrong. What if young kids were to see those videos?

In my opinion showing such horrible video is a step in the wrong direction. When you have such easy access to gory content, there's a chance that people could become desensitized to it. That's the exact opposite of how people should regard those types of events. When presented as a sort of novelty or entertainment, the seriousness of it seems to diminish.

On a lighter note, a professor from one of my classes last semester showed us a Youtube video that was a parody of the movie called Grizzly Man. Grizzly Man was a documentary about a guy named Timothy Treadwell that lived among Alaskan Grizzlies for over ten years. Sadly, He and his girlfriend were killed by a Grizzly. The director of the film took Treadwell's video footage and used it in the film. Though their end was a tragic one, the footage showed how odd Treadwell could be a times. I wrote in a paper for that class that I thought that Treadwell must have been mentally ill. It was more of a film about Treadwell's life, and not his death.

The parody Video was called Hedgehog Man. I'm going to look like a big hypocrite here but I thought it was pretty funny. They were mainly making fun of how goofy Treadwell acted, but I think they were pushing it when they named the main character "Timothy Deadwell." However I think that the justification for the parody might become a little more apparent after you see Grizzly Man.

Asides from all that fun, I was happy to see that Time Magazine named "You" the person of the year. In a way, I think that the internet and Web 2.0 has really helped the world’s population. As Time stated, "The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game...� The term "digital democracy" really struck a chord with me. It seems to suggest that people's opinions are now unhindered by the borders of their own countries. Now people can bypass the mainstream media and the official watered down talking points. They can express themselves through any of the available digital mediums available like Youtube and Flikr. I think that this could possibly be a great tool for social change.

I am Time's Person of the Year!!!

I think technologies such as cell phone cameras and digital cameras along with YouTube will allow people to see more of what is really happening in the world. Sites such as Yahoo and Reuters are “introducing a new effort to showcase photographs and video of news events submitted by the public� (Hansell). I agree with Grossman that "we are so ready for it." So if you have a cell phone camera or a digital camera start paying attention to what is happening around you, because you could have the potential to capture news. You could even get paid for what you post on Reuters. According to Hansell's article (see link above) it is also possible to receive payment for your photos and videos if they are selected for distribution to Reuters clients.

Check out Yahoo's You Witness News Here

I think it can definitely harm the entertainment industry when music videos are posted before their premier. If people can see the video before it premiers they are probably not going to tune into MTV to actually watch the premier. This can cause MTV to lose viewers who would have previously tune in to watch music video premier (not that they actually show music videos an MTV anymore anyways). I don’t think uploading clips of old TV shows is going to harm the entertainment industry very much. Generally old TV shows are not on TV anymore so there will not be a loss of viewers to YouTube.

Me, Myself, and YouTube

The way we see media is changing. Instead of people are getting their news and entertainment from television, magazines, and radios, we are now replacing print media and radios with the Internet. We can get almost anything on the Internet. The Internet now contains both print media and the radio with stations now streaming their broadcasts online people around the country can listen to programs that they would otherwise not get. We also entertain ourselves by seeing things that the public would have no first hand knowledge of happening if there were not sites like YouTube or Google Video. A great example of this is the tasering incident at UCLA.

A student was able to use his camera to record the incident. "One video is carried by the Los Angeles local NBC affiliate. In the video, officers can be heard shouting numerous times, “Get up! Stand up!� The video is shot from behind a table with computers, but Tabatabainejad apparently pops up briefly before falling. A Taser can then be heard buzzing" (Thacker). The reason why so many people have seen this is the closeness one can get to the situation. Amateur video makes it seem like you are closer to the action. A recent example is the home video taken by the student at Virginia Tech. One can hear yelling and gunshots in the background. It is one of hte most viewed things on YouTube. It is a frightening and chilling video and people watch it because we can see from an actual student how they react to the situation. I think when civilians become journalists it benefits everyone. We get to see things that news programs would not show. Also, civilian journalism can uncover things that journalists do not investigate. Many time bloggers have uncovered scandals without any help from any news organization. An example of this is at the University of Arkansas where a blogger uncovered text messages that the coach had sent to boosters and to a female sportscaster (there were over a 1,000 in a month and he's married. If you even remotely care heres the link: http://deadspin.com/sports/arkansas-razorbacks/?view=full). This proves that no one in the public eye are safe because with the Internet anyone can be a journalist and I think it means that we are moving towards a different type of reporting, one that recognizes the contributions of bloggers and other people who do not have a journalism degree.

Next, I believe that it benefits the entertainment industry when people post things online. As the Time article says, "Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals... Who has that time and that energy and that passion?" (Grossman). By allowing people to put clips online, it lets people hear a new sound, maybe generations who have not had the opportunity to hear the fabulous sounds of Queen will become curious and look for their music. Some corporations have accepted the sites like YouTube and Google video are here to stay. NBC puts clips from Leno, SNL, and Conan online; the NHL posts 2-5 minute clips of all the games from the previous night online. These two vloggers are two of the most subscribed videos on YouTube. This should prove to the rest of the entertainment industry how valuable the Internet really is and to accept that it is here to stay. Because if corporations begin to mess with vloggers, they will be sure to let these corporations know that they are not pleased.

Real Life As Seen By The Many

In the past, much of the technology used to make and distribute video on a worldwide scale was limited to TV cameras and expensive broadcasting equipment that no one aside from large corporations (television networks, in other words) had access to. I think what we're starting to see now is the beginning of that kind of technology becoming cheap and easy to use. Many of these incidents getting caught on video, uploaded to Youtube, and in some cases gaining worldwide exposure are being filmed by normal people with cell phone cameras. Because of these very low budget clips (often caught by college students no different from myself), I've seen these scenes caught firsthand that otherwise would have been just another story on the news to me. Saddam's execution and that tasering incident from UCLA are examples, as well as the video that was on CNN just a couple days ago of gunshots at Virginia Tech.

However, taking the taser incident from the reading as an example, the perspective you get from these do it yourself videos isn't always the whole story. "Not all the events... can be heard or viewed on Youtube." (Taser Case Continues To Reverberate). The video linked to from that article was quite shocking, but also out of context. On one hand, sites like Youtube allow videos like that to be released to the general public without the restrictions from ordinary network TV, but it can also paint a biased picture of things.

Another consequence of things being taken out of context is that sometimes, something that looks real may just be an imitation. The creators of the Lonelygirl15 video blogs essentially did just that by taking the archetype of the teenage blogger, creating a character who fit that archetype, and posting their videos on Youtube without even a hint that Bree's whole image was false. However, when the ruse was inevitably exposed, fans of the video blog simply "took it in stride" without feeling betrsyed or otherwise giving up on the project (The Secret World of Lonelygirl). Essentially, they had given birth to a brand new form of entertainment, one which could recieve input and be directly influenced by its fanbase. On one hand, this form of entertainment could easily blur the line between fantasy and reality if done properly, but it can also provide a level of immersion that isn't possible in any other medium.

Fair and Balanced (yeah, right.)

"We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped." (TIME's Person of the Year, p.1) Grossman’s comment reminded me of another article I read about a recent study that sort of questions whether we really benefit from celebrating ourselves so publicly. A commenting psychologist cites Myspace and YouTube as examples of the way technology can promote attention-seeking and contribute to a self-centered society. I feel like it’s pretty easy to look around and see examples of the narcissistic behaviors this article mentions, but I also see this sort of mass personal empowerment as positive in that is opens the discourse to a wider segment of society. There are fewer reasons to be a passive consumer, and more options for media participation.

"… videos of police using force, while troubling to watch, can sometimes give a distorted view of what officers are doing. Unfortunately, many times there is no context to see what led to it." (Shock and Anger at UCLA. Thacker)
Of course, any video footage is shaped by the camera people, editors, etc. who determine what to show and what not to show. We accept this on TV news, but when it's on YouTube, what is not shown becomes a reason to doubt the accuracy of what we’re seeing.

“An early sticking point in the search for online investors was exclusivity…If (LonelyGirl15) couldn't be shared – if hard borders were put around it – how different was it from TV?.� (Secret world of LonelyGirl, Davis p.4)
I think it’s interesting that the creators of LonelyGirl are so committed to breaking away from the TV format, even if it means they aren’t making money yet (you’d think Target would at least want to work that product placement opportunity). Sharing is of primary importance to those involved with the project, quite a different approach to the possessiveness we’ve been reading about these past few weeks.

Continue reading "Fair and Balanced (yeah, right.)" »

April 17, 2007

Could it be...I'm Time's Person of the Year?

The improvements in the digital world, has made it that much easier to capture just about anything and post it onto the Internet. Whether the moment be caught on video camera or now telephones, just about anything and any point in time can be captured and displayed to millions and millions of viewers within a matter of minutes. Has the improvements in the digital world caused more harm than good? I think in the case at UCLA where the cop tasered a student without identification can show what good can come from catching something like this on a new technological device. A camera or even a phone can be just as good as another set of eyes, in this case—and capture things that we are unable to reproduce a second time ourselves.

My personal opinion is that people are very curious in nature. We are always wanting to know about the unknown. Just reading about something, isn’t enough for people now a days. A site like YouTube and GoogleVideo have allowed average Joe people to post videos pertaining to all different sorts of topics, including actual news stories. Take for example, the shooting massacre that occurred at Virginia Tech on Monday. Hundreds of YouTube videos have been documented and posted, on people’s thoughts and tributes to the individual’s who were taken. You are able to get a glimpse at many people’s view of this particular and unfortunate incident, first hand. In this particular instance, I think YouTube has been a way for some of these students to cope and gather their thoughts about what had happened, and pay tribute to their fellow students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PCr8CyG1Sg

The clip above shows an interesting clip of 9/11 plane crashes into the World Trade Center. With the improvement in technology we are able to take a closer look with more explicit details, as you will see in this clip.

I do believe there are some people creating videos to get recognized and make so $$$ in the process. Look at the success LonelyGirl is having, even after the audience knows that it’s all pretend! Obviously there are some sound marketing tactics, behind the scenes in a few of these videos.

In conclusion, I was quite confused with the whole Time Magazine nominating you as the 2006 Time’s Person of the Year, but after reading the article a few times in made sense. The digital world has opened the doors for all individuals to bring out their creative edge and do the unthinkable! Like Grossman (2006) points out, “It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious.� (2).

This week on youtube

First off right before I started this assignment I got distracted with the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfFrCUrEbY I love that video, it makes you think about how we sadly abandon our elderly. Anyways.

Before reading this Time magazine article I have to admit I thought the whole "person of the year" being "you". I mean comon, the spot is supposed to be reserved for people who "shape our collective destiny as a species". (Grossman). I have to say after completing the article I fully understand why Time Magazine chose "you" as the "person of the year". Through the development and large scale implimentation of web 2.0 we really have collectively bonded together to mold our world. Through collectively editing Wikipedia (a topic we have discussed in great detail), posting news events on youtube, or blogged our thoughts regarding politicians we have each done our part in contributing to the advancement of mankind.

Regarding the UCLA incident. I really do not have as much sympathy for Mostafa as most. Hasn't he ever watched an episode of Cops? If you don't listen to the police and cause a fuss like that, then your going to either run into the use of force (ie they usually push the person to the hood of the car and handcuff them, sometimes mace is used, and occasionally the taser is used) and/or the police will charge you with resisting arrest. In the insidehirered article the use of a taser is condone by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center as for "dangerous individuals and never on individuals who are passively resisting arrest." (Thacker). I am not sure that he was dangerous but he was certainly resisting arrest/not complying. All he had to do was simply leave and none of this would have happened. Regarding his lawyers statement that the police selected him because of his racial background, I kind of doubt it. They were checking for ID's and asked him to leave but he resisted. I don't doubt that racial profiling may exist in the American Police forces but not everytime an officer uses force is it because of race. For example, I have personally witnessed a pair of police officers literally tackle a caucasian female (and knocked her square to the ground in which she did a faceplant to the cement) who tried to run off on them when she similarly refused their requests. I do have to admit the video was kind of shocking but it's hard to say that there isn't bias in it.

Regardless, I am glad that the police force and other task forces are investigating the matter as it is a matter of concern. This was just my opinion on the matter based upon what I saw and what the officers saw and the students there saw could have been much different.

Also, my cousin is an MP for the Marines and during training they subject you to various things such as mace and tasers and he said it wasn't as painful as Mr Mostafa makes you think it is. I really don't think this is anywhere near what the Rodney King Video was like. Hey I think I'll use that for my youtube video selection as it really is the analogue version of what we see quite often with cell phone uploads on youtube. I must warn you the people who post comments for this video are quite offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH-nal6PkQo

Lee Harvey Oswald shot by Jack Ruby

I think this is one of the you have to see it to believe it moments. One of the most important murder suspects in American history is shot, in a jail, surrounded by press and police. I don't think I could imagine it by just reading...

You Heard It Here First

I think it is every persons duty to relay important information. No matter what it is, if its news, it can and may be reported in my opinion. This is because when something is reported, it can be left up to debate. When things are classified and secret, no other opinions are included in the decision making process. America was founded on people being critical of a situation, and by the looks of the way the forefathers of this country acted during their time, is the way it was intended to remain. While some of our freedoms were at times taken away and later restored, some would even argue we are still missing a lot of our freedom.

Personally, I think the more freedom of press, the better off the country will be. The full inclusion of all information and knowledge leads to better informed decisions. A court case without all the facts can hardly be called a situation where justice is served. As technology advances, this allows for more distinguishable proof. For example, in yesterday's video of the horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech., the first video we had was one from a cell phone. We could hear the sounds of the bullets being fired, and it brought to life just how horrible the situation was.

Writing is writing, it can paint pictures and be influential, but it isn't as valid as undoctored video. I think an example of how video is more effective than sound alone can be seen in the money and time spent pertaining to televisions over radio. Superbowl parties don't revolve around radios, as long as television is an option.

The UCLA situation offers this kind of debate I was talking about, this example from me:

After reading the initial story, I saw this as a horrible abuse of police power. Then I saw and heard the young man not making an effort to leave after he was tazed once already. I do not think I could make a distinction whether he deserved the initial taze or not, but if the initial taze was worthy, I think the next four were needed. The kid did not move. I can imagine that it hurt, and hurt bad. But wouldn't you leave? I would. Again, whether the initial taze was deserved is doubtful in my mind, as it was for simply leaving a library. The student seemed to be causing no harm to anyone.

Had I not seen the video, I could really have no opinion, as there I would have no take as part of an "eyewitness" account. So record everything you can and use your cellphone as you like. Freedom is great as I have explained above, but there is one thing I haven't really touched on: One's freedom impending on another person's freedom. This is where the regulation should come in, but the line cannot be drawn by me yet. I need to see more evidence.

April 16, 2007

Only Mostafa knows for sure.....

It is tough to get away with anything. Cameras are everywhere and there is no place to hide. For my 2nd post later in the week, I will try to embed the cell phone video of the awful shooting in Virginia today. A student’s cell phone captured some of the melee including the sound of gunfire.

There are a few conflicting events during the taser episode. Mostafa was in the library without his Bruincard, the student ID for students at UCLA. As was policy at the library, there were random checks of ID’s to ensure that only students were in the library. It is said that the campus security announced that night that they were checking ID’s and if a student didn’t have their ID with them they would have to leave. Sources state that this was standard procedure. Mostafa was a 3rd year student pursuing a double major. He should have known the procedure. The police were called to evict him from the premises when he didn’t comply and he didn’t feel he should be forcibly removed. When the officers tried to remove him he passively resisted. He went limp and fell to the floor. That is when he was “drive stunned�. The drive stun is a milder jolt of electricity and it doesn’t involve penetration of the skin. The problem is when a person is tased they lose the ability to stand and walk. The behavior of the police contradicted the end result they were looking for.

The flip side of the event is the aggressive nature of the police. Did they have a potential riot on their hands? Were they attempting to remove Mostafa as quickly as possible? The cell phone video shows Mostafa kicking and screaming as the police tried to remove him while he was handcuffed. He was tased five times before he was removed from the library. Was that a little excessive? Perhaps

Was Mostafa looking for trouble? Was it a set-up to make a statement? Why wouldn’t he just stand up and leave when requested? He knew the rules and he had probably seen other students asked to leave the library in his three years at the school. Only Mostafa knows for sure.

The UCLA Taser case continues with Mostafa Tabatabainejad filing a complaint in January against the school and the officers. He is attempting to sue the parties for excessive force during his arrest.

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.

April 15, 2007

Machinima: Text 100 in Second Life

Here is an advertisement for business on SecondLife. Text100 is the first public relations company to do so. It is an interesting and quick overview of how business can utilize Second Life. (I've never worked in a place where everyone is so perfect looking like at Text100!)

Continue reading "Machinima: Text 100 in Second Life" »

HappyStudent29

“Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.� (Grossman) This is certainly a statement I agree with. It’s not just YouTube, but blogs, websites, and emails. But, an entirely different subject…

The taser incident at UCLA is something else. It did not appear to be handled properly or with much thought by the officials in charge. The technologies that allow us to view these incidents are increasing. Before this, if someone happened to have a camcorder while an incident was going on, it made the nightly news. Now, anyone with a cell phone can record anyone anywhere at any time. Once it is recorded, it can be easily uploaded to the Internet. The people in the videos, in particular the bystanders, do not give out permission to be on the Internet. That video is on the Internet for a while. Also, how do the viewers know if the film was altered? It’s difficult to know if the film was posted by a credible source. Also, I’m not a big fan of executions or personal disasters being shown on the Internet (or television for that matter). I guess I don’t understand why someone would feel the need to see that. From what I’ve learned this semester, information on the Internet appears so permanent and can be so damaging to someone in the future. It’s removal is difficult.

I found the videos to LonelyGirl entertaining. It was interesting (although I’m not surprised) that viewers believed Bree was a real person doing a personal vlog. “A Hollywood movie is understood to be fictional. Vlogging on YouTube is not.� The producers of LonelyGirl were pretty clever in admitting to the users that the characters are not real but they could communicate with them. Guess it always helps to have a lawyer as one of the team members. “It's all the more engrossing because viewers can correspond with the characters and even affect the plot.� (Secret World of Lonely Girl) I think they found something fun and entertaining (without the commercials) for those who are soap opera maniacs. The interaction with the audience is also a clever twist. Everyone wants to give out their 2-cents of advice and now they can. I'm sure some of those emails are very interesting to say the least!

UFO's Must Be Real - I Saw One On YouTube

This weeks readings about the UCLA Taser case have made me really angry. I’m angry in both the talk show sense about the incident and I’m also angry as I think critically about the influence participatory journalism has via the speed and reach of the Internet and the availability of user-created content - I’ll spare you all from my talk show opinions here.

Having been a photographic interpreter in the U.S. Navy working for Naval Intelligence for six years where we used photogrammetric methods to analyze various kind of imagery (photographic, infrared, video, etc.), I learned that an image is literally worth a thousand words, but if you don’t know the language the words may be gibberish. Photogrammetry is a method of thinking critically about what you were looking at and not simply jumping to conclusions about what something looks like.

User created content from cell-phone cameras may be useful and it may not be useful in documenting an event. In the case of the UCSL Taser incident, in my opinion, the quality of the video was so poor that the video raises more questions than it answers. Technologies like digital imagery from cell-phones on YouTube can be misinterpreted or only show one perspective of an event. Furthermore, the imagery may have been edited prior to being posted on YouTube to show only a particular perspective of an event that the creator of the content wants you to see. There isn’t a chain-of-custody of the video content on YouTube and so very little credibility. You can’t really know what to believe. If we could trust that the content on YouTube was always the raw video that we could draw our own conclusions from, then I see great benefit in the video content on the Internet.

I don’t think that music videos or clips of old TV shows uploaded to YouTube hurt the entertainment industry. The quality of the video clips I’ve seen on YouTube are so poor that if I wanted the clip I’d be more than happy to pay the entertainment industry for the quality I desire.

If I take anything away from this course it is how powerful a tool the Internet is and at the same time how dangerous the Internet has become. Only our ability to think critically about the content on the Internet is what makes the information useful.

Need I say more:

April 14, 2007

YouTube Post: CBS Coverage of iPhone Introduction

I chose the YouTube video of the CBS News coverage of the Apple iPhone introduction at the MacWorld Conference and Exposition in San Francisco in January 2007. I selected this video as my post because this new technology excites me on several different levels. I also selected the video because it is from a credible source. As my text post states this week - credibility is a major issue with video we find on the Internet.

April 10, 2007

Continue reading "" »