On Oct 26, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Pete Prodoehl wrote:

Irish Hermit wrote:


2. Vlogs are nothing more than homemade television on the internet.  
Get over it folks.  I've been around too long to think of it as 
nothing more than another installment in a long line of the "next 
great thing" that will change how we all communicate.  Email and 
webpages with hypertext were monumental changes.  Blogs and vlogs 
are 
just adding an already existing technology to webpages.  Laptops 
will 
replace the cumbersome television console in the middle of the 
living 
room.  Ipods and other small players will become the Dick Tracy 
writstwatch tv's we've been waiting for.  But at the end of the day 
it's still television.


I guess it's a matter of definition... I obviously don't agree with your 
definition of 'television' which to me requires licenses, towers, lots 
of staff, advertisers, lawyers, sizable audiences, etc...

Personally I consider email and blogs giant leaps in how we communicate. 
I think this discussion right here is proof of that.

I'm probably foolish to wade in here, but I'll do it tentatively.  I'll issue the disclaimer that I know far less about this than a lot of the other people participating in this discussion.  I had to google McLuhan.

There is "video" and "television."  Television was the first real broadcast video medium available to us (do we want to count Edison's moving pictures?).  It requires licenses, towers, lots of staff, advertisers, lawyers and the rest.  It is extremely expensive, but it came to dominate the way we talk about video.

To a great extent the content broadcast using television is dictated by the medium.  The medium is expensive, so the content must be of a type that can garner a large audience.  It has to appeal, generally speaking, to a lowest common denominator.

The same thing was true of text.  Books and newspapers were really expensive to publish, pamphlets less so but still expensive.  The Web drastically reduced the cost of getting a text message out the door and into people's minds... the blog represents the next step (the ultimate step?) in the cheapening (in a good way, I mean "it's getting less expensive" and not "less good") of textual communication.

As the text blog was to the newspaper, magazine or pamphlet (maybe more appropriately the Xerox'd 'zine) the video blog is and should be to television, FedEx'd VHS tapes and public access television.

So there is clearly a difference between the formats, but in the end it's about one thing: delivering a moving picture to some number of people efficiently.  For videoblogs "some number" can be much smaller than for television.  Which is fantastic.

I'm ignoring, by the way, the social factors of the different mediums -- they're fascinating, and pertinent, but I've already gone on long enough.  Comments, trackbacks, quoting, participatory media, oh my!

3. To those who say the difference here is that no one can tell us 
what to say:  That's not true.  There are plenty of laws on libel, 
slander, pornography, national defence, and copyright that limit 
what 
you can say on your vlog.  Most ISP have limits in their terms of 
service on things like "hate speech".  You can't do anything you 
want.

Ok, maybe 'no one can tell us what to say' is a little too literal. It's 
more like 'I don't have to base what I can say off of what will piss off 
the advertisers, my boss, or get my license revoked' Most television 
aims to please the advertisers and audience. Today most videoblogs do 
not have these concerns.

If you think videoblogs are the same as television, why bother watching 
them? Can't you just watch tv and get all the same stuff?

Is watching a vlog on a television "watching tv" or "watching a videoblog" or "watching video" or what?

Yours,

Mike


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to