> I bitched about it to the reporter that did the > story. His response was that's what his producers wanted. To the > MSM, videoblogging, > vlogging, vidcasting, online video, whatever you want to call it, > *IS* YouTube. > > Now, will I put any more videos on YT in the future? I doubt it. I > went, I saw, I > tried...*meh* I'm done. At this point, I don't want to be YouTube > famous. I'll stick to the > tried and true method for me of putting my videos on my own site > and doing whatever I > can to promote people that are the "independents". > > David > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com > http://www.taoofdavid.com > > .
I hate to keep harping on this, and it just occurred to me that I might not have 'harped' on it here, but I say it so often I can't be sure. It's not a 'Mainstream' media, not MSM, it's a Corporate Media. That's why YouTube is the feature. It's about sponsorship and profit. Until your video blog can command the attention of Corporate Sponsorship dollars, and can drive serious profit, you won't be featured in the Corporate Media. I've been beating my head against the wall on this on all kinds of political sites for 10 years now. We, the people who are outside of the system, the 'Independents' have got to get our shit together when it comes to messaging. We should be calling it the Coporate Media, as that's the real problem. Mainstream media poses the idea that it's 'what people want'. Corporate Media means it's about profit and sponsorship. The customers of the corporate media are corporate sponsors, viewers are the product being sold. The customer gets what they want. We, being the product, don't get what we want. We get whatever it is we will take before we turn it off. f we were the customer, would we be getting more commercials per hour? No we'd be getting less. If we were the customer, would we be getting the same shit different channel? No, we'd be getting more quality programming. The term Corporate Media places this concept closer to the front of people's minds. It's descriptive, it's indicting, and it's what's necessary to challenge people to turn it off. People are very close to turning it off, IMHO, but using terms like MSM doesn't give the push that's necessary. There literally is nothing worth looking at that is not Corporate Sponsored. We've got to change that. We've got to challenge Corporate Sponsorship, and it starts with language. I could keep writing, on and on, about this topic, but I'm not going to bore anyone, or preach to anyone, but if we want to start to challenge the Corporate Media, we should correctly label them so as to keep other people's eyes on the ball. David, this is not really addressed to you, specifically, so don't feel as if you need to defend yourself. I know that might be a wasted thought, but I really hate to have people take offense at this speech. I've given it a boatload of times, and it really has not much to do with you personally. It's really about us more effectively messaging and getting a better idea out there so in the future the Media might actually pick people like us up and run with them. Thanks for reading. Cheers, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog http://pawsitivevybe.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
