There was some talk in this group about youtuber's that I thought was a bit snobbish a while ago, because it made me rant, but it was probably only mild and it can be hard to seperate criticism of the service with those using it sometimes.
But on a certain level I would not be surprised if the 'brand repputation' of youtube can heavily influence the reputation of someone posting there. I could forsee plenty of exceptions, a show that gets enough attention will be talked about in terms of itself, that its on youtube is incidental. And this just re-inforces the fact that one off clips, copyrighted stuff, other popular 'viral' videos without a strong identity of their own are what will link most strongly to the word 'youtube'. If there is any snobbishness around, I suppose its bourn from some peoples high expectations and ideals about what videoblogging would be used for. What I could describe as the 'liberal intellectual' wing could understandably make such noises sometimes. Reminds me of the old days of British broadcast television... First there was the BBC, which was (and remains) very paternalistic. Lots of corporate agenda's focussed on their role in society as a public service, and lots of intellectual thinking on how the medium could be used for the masses to better themselves. Resulting in lots of high-brow programming that could be a bit stuffy. Then along came the first commercial channel, ITV, which didnt mind putting on lots of cheap popular entertainment, which got very high viewing figures, gave a lot of people what they wanted, but was regarded by the aforementioned BBC patriarch's as 'vulgar'. I guess its not a new phenomenon, and 'class' still matters, unfortunately, no matter if everyone pretends it doesnt mean anything anymore. vlogtellectuals vs youtube, bbc vs itv, music hall vs opera and stuff like that. Plus humans are dead good at noticing differences. What seperates us, why are they different, they seem like a different tribe. Even something like using webcams as the norm rather than DV cams can create a funny sort of divide and noticable difference. I have to be careful here too because class may play a role in that - for poorer humans, webcams are a lot more accessible. Anyway I just cant use the word youtube as one blanket description for content type anymore. There seems to be 3 or 4 very different ways of using youtube. Much of the actual community/social aspect of it seemed extremely similar to social networking sites, with the same age bias and some underlying sense of a lot of youthful energy , directed at the sorts of things young people focus on. So I was extremely happy o see how popular that old uk bloke is on there, geriatric1927 or whatever his handle is. Yes there are quite a lot of people past their teens and 20's on there, but Im sure age is one imbalance that has a marked effect on youtube, its certainly responsible for many of the awful text comments. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Mark Day" <markdaycomedy@> > wrote: > > > > Q: Why are videobloggers like mainstream media executives? > > > > A: They both look down on people who post videos on YouTube. > > > > Actually, that's unfair. To mainstream media executives (ba - dum - > bing!) > > > > It's funny, as we like to say in comedy, because it's true. > > > > Just some food for thought. > > > > Cheers > > > > Mark Day > > http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv > > http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy > > http://www.myspace.com/markday > > > For the most part, I agree with your generalization. Of course > generalizations don't apply to everyone and perhaps not even most > people, though one could gather from the conversations that go on in > this group that you would be correct. > > YouTube is a vehicle... an arena. Nothing more and nothing less. > There are people that have technical issues with YT and complain that > they're a closed environment. That really doesn't have anything to do > with the posters, because it's not their choice. They're not the > management. YouTube just happens to be an easy way to put video on > the internet and distribute that video to a lot of people, practically > immediately, and TOTALLY for free (assuming you already have the > computer equipment / camera). > > Unfortunately, the same thing that makes YT easy to get involved with > makes it a source of endless buffoonery. The signal/noise ratio is > outlandish. Unfortunately for the prospect of YT being 'accepted' > outside of its own walls (not that it needs acceptance at all), > there's so much garbage on it that it's not likely that the casual > observer coming into contact with YT by accident is going to see > something that endears them to the site. Well... Unless you count the > fact that there' so much pirated material on YT, but that's not what > this discussion is about. > > Hopefully, with the successes of "shows" like Lonelygirl15 and > LisaNova, the YT environment will evolve into more than sending video > chats back and forth and making comments about them. I think that's a > really valuable use for YT, but the opportunity is there for the same > people to apply themselves creatively and develop their abilities at > broadcasting and communication, if that's what their goals are. For > some people, it's just easier to make videos and watch them online > than go to the mall and meet people, so that's what they do. > > Yes, there are people developing characters and creating situations to > portray them in and making up comedy skits and stop-motion videos and > all kinds of interesting, intelligent, progressive and VERY TALENTED > stuff. Unfortunately, there's no way to find those except for trial & > error. In 'defending' what's creative about YT, you also have to > defend what isn't creative, because there's no distinction. There are > director accounts, but that doesn't mean that those channels have been > held to any standard of quality, content-wise or > production-value-wise. It's like saying someone's a good basketball > player because they're on the varsity team, but you don't mention that > they ride the bench and never set foot on the basketball court. :) > They get to wear the jacket, though. Everyone on YT is wearing the > same jacket. > > Meanwhile, you have people learning to put video on the internet out > in the wild. No walled garden. No guaranteed visibility. No social > network to ping-pong your video around causing more views. No "video > response" so you can automatically piggyback on a video that gets > viewed literally a million times. No ability to leech off of the top > subscribed people/groups in the community just by mentioning their > names in the titles of your videos. No arbitrarily decided > "featuring" of your video....... > > There's going to be a certain amount of "looking down upon" by people > who are doing MORE towards people who are doing LESS. It's just > natural. MLB players look down on AAA players. AAA players look down > on little league players. World Cup soccer players look down on the > local American teams. NFL players look down upon CFL players. People > making movies in Hollywood look down on independent filmmakers without > the budget even to get someone to score their film properly. Does > this mean that CFL players can't make it to the NFL? No. It doesn't > mean that independent filmmakers aren't going to make it to Hollywood > or make a film that has more value and integrity than films currently > being produced in Hollywood. > > There's no doubt that there's SOME quality on YouTube. :) The problem > is that without the ability to separate the "YT Elite" from the > garbage, all of youse have to stand together when someone chooses to > evaluate the site as a whole. When someone posts a video of some lady > slipping on a banana peel and gets 100,000 views for that on YouTube, > that doesn't make them a good filmmaker. If they stole the video from > somewhere else, they're less than that. There's no regulation and no > quality control. > > It's like having your GED <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED>. > Basically, you can opt-out of High School and take a test. If you > pass that test, the government will agree that you have enough > knowledge that you WOULD HAVE graduated High School if you had > bothered (or been able, in some circumstances) to go. :D Are people > with GEDs looked down upon? Yep. Does it mean they can't do the job > you're hiring for? Nope. They might be the best applicant for the > position. However, they're still going to be categorized with > alllllll the rest of the people that walked through the doors of the > emploment office with evidence that they passed one test on one day > instead of going to High School and graduating like everyone else. > Even if you dropped out of High School to get a job to help your > mother pay the rent, you're going to be stigmatized along with the > kids that spent all day smoking pot and ditching class..... Same > thing with YouTube. > > -- > Bill C. > http://ReelSolid.TV >
