On Friday, in lieu of class, I’m going to ask you to watch the series of videos below (it’ll take you just more than an hour) and write a 400-word response in which you connect Michael Wesch’s ideas with journalism and its emerging forms online. Please post your response in the comments section by Saturday.
- An anthropological introduction to YouTube, 55 min. 33 sec.
- The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version), 4 min. 33 sec. (you might recognize this one!)
- A Vision of Students Today, 4 min. 44 sec.
These clips will serve as a good entree into discussing online video, which will come up soon after we get the final projects started next week. The question is, as the production and global dissemination of video has become ridiculously cheap and easy, what kind of implications does that have for visuals in (professional and citizen) journalism? How about for democracy in general and the press’ traditional role in mediating political messages?
You could also think about these things in light of “digital culture”—a concept that has so dominated our discussions this semester (see here and here, for instance). What is it exactly? And do news organizations today get the digital culture playing out on YouTube and in the broader realm of social media?
Yes, these videos are about anthropology and education, but for our purposes I want you to see them in the context of online journalism and its future. For instance, listen to what University of Florida journalism professor Mindy McAdams (the source of this assignment idea) had to say, in describing these very Wesch clips in relation to journalism today:
The newspaper and news industry discussions about what they call user-generated video miss the point. Seriously. All these news orgs fell all over themselves trying to hop on the online video bandwagon as fast as they could. Some of them thought UGC needed to be part of the mix, and some did not, but in either case, the rush to video had much to do with the explosion of YouTube.The explosion of YouTube was only partly about video.
Only partly about video.
The other parts: community, sharing, communication, identity, self-expression.
Everybody in journalism needs to understand this. This is a huge piece that’s missing from the puzzle of how to save journalism.
Check out Prof. McAdams’ notes on the Wesch presentation (and more here):
For starters, these videos somehow managed to soften my hard stance against YouTube. I found the anthropological side to the discussion fascinating. But, that’s not what we’re discussing here.
In my Political Communication class, we discussed a few weeks ago a topic that I think has some relevance here. In discussing presidential debates, the point was brought up that the media dominates the message. In other words, all day long we watch polished actors and actresses who have memorized scripts, recite poetic dialogue that both dazzles the eye and ear. It is, at its core, spectacle. Bringing in the idea of YouTube and online video, I’m not sure this is necessarily the case. User-generated content is in effect the first real force of video on the Internet. So, perhaps instead of having high expectations of what we’re about to view (like we do when watching television, thus causing us to have unimpressed reactions to “real people” like politicians), we have lower expectations—we’re expecting to see people just like us on the Internet. The expectations game determines our reaction to what we see. We’re more likely to be disappointed by “regular people” on television, but perhaps more likely to be impressed by them online.
This connects to journalism in very real and serious ways. Just like it was a mistake to upload the same, plain stories in the newspaper onto a paper’s Web site, so too is it ineffectual to do this in the broadcast journalism realm. People don’t want to see clean-cut, polished anchors sitting at a desk when they’re seeing video. Instead, user-generated content puts us–the viewer–at the center of the “mediascape.” But it doesn’t stop there. Not only do users upload the content, but they also filter, organize and distribute it, just as they already do on Digg. It is the connection between important events in culture and the people of that culture that is missing from today’s media Web sites. If the Web is all about mediating human relationships, then the traditional one-way content of broadcast video is doomed for failure.
And finally, a bit about community: Several of my classes this semester have brought up Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone.” I get the message–it’s on my to-read list. But from what I understand, he describes the fact that people, because of changes in the social structures of culture, interact less. They choose to be part of the larger, faceless community of television-viewers for example, rather than a bowling league. In bringing this up in his presentation, Wesch next talked about “context collapse”–the idea that people don’t know who they’re talking to. In other words, when you post content, everyone is watching but no one is there. This to me screams “citizen journalist.” As a CitJo, YOU are there. YOU are covering what’s happening. The online community is essentially awaiting your report. The awkwardness of this type of reporting soon goes away when you have something to report. In my mind, I imagine the community board meeting that nobody bothered to attend, but everyone will be effected by its outcome. A citizen journalist is able to get online, produce a video that explains what happened, and connect to the people near whom she lives. The effect is greater than a blog or other form of communication because it’s human. The viewer, sitting in his home, sees his neighbor, just as he would out in the front yard. But through online video, she’s able to have that same conversation with everyone in the neighborhood. This increases the scope of who gets the information, the speed at which it’s received, and quite possibly the effectiveness.
I really liked the videos. When I think about the whole YouTube phenomenon, I am amazed that people are willing to sit in front of the computer for hours and watch what are mostly low-quality videos (both in resolution and in content.) But, then I realize that I am one of these people! It makes me really wonder what makes these homemade videos so captivating, that we would rather watch a YouTube video over a professionally made mass media video online.
One thing that really stuck with me from the first video is the idea that now there is a user-generated alternative to all aspects of mass media, including mass distribution. Essentially, you can have a broader and bigger audience than the major media networks. On that note, I still don’t think the mass media completely “gets” it (it being this digital culture.) If they did, YouTube videos would not be getting millions of hits, while mainstream media videos go virtually unseen.
The press, I believe, has almost lost completely the stronghold it once had on mediating political messages. In large part, I believe the “people formerly known as the audience” (as Jay Rosen would say,) have taken over and they are now in control of mediating the message they want the world to see. It is democracy in every sense of the word–everyone has a voice in politics that can actually be heard. And, I think this is where the traditional media is struggling, because this role of mediator is now a role everyone can take on. The traditional media landscape is almost at a loss because everyone now has the tools to do what the media does best. The media has to reinvent themselves, and their business model to do what only they can do for their audience. They have to find that thing, and I’m not sure I even know what their “thing” would be, but they have to discover the one thing that they can beat everyone else at. They are no longer competing against the other networks, they are competing against a network of individuals from around the globe who are connected by their common ability to produce their own message and disseminate it to the masses with the click of a button.
In the first video he discusses us as individuals in the middle of this media landscape and I think he’s right about the human relationship aspect of everything. I’m not sure the mass media has caught on to this community that everyone wants to be a part of. The sites that do well are sites that engage an audience that can not only read about interests or stories similar to theirs, but they can upload and publish their own stories and interests. It’s this idea of two-way communication. For so long, the mass media has simply been one-way communication…this idea of “let us tell you what is important.” But, people want to be part of a conversation.
These were very interesting, thought-provoking videos. I liked Wesch’s optimism, and he made me feel more positive about the kinds of communities technology can help us create. Some issues stood out to me in particular.
When Wesch talked about the amount of media produced on YouTube each day, my immediate reaction was, how do we sift through all of this? He basically came up with the same answer I had thought about: some kind of gatekeeper function, preferably controlled by users (or community members, as they seem to be more aptly named.) However, in applying this to web journalism, I can foresee some problems. First, although the example of the Superbowl Sunday video certainly points to the idea that not everyone is interested in somewhat empty (though entertaining!) media, I am worried that important news stories could get pushed to the side because of interest in goofier media products. I think this is why niche reporting sites are so crucial; when you have blogs and sites specialized in topics like sports, music, and political news, people who are interested in these things can go there and get the top pick for that particular issue. This way, people won’t miss out on important things – there could be a whole site (and there are!) dedicated to entertainment, and others that are current events-based.
The other problem user-sifted content could have is due to the technology barrier. Citizens from lower socio-economic groups may not have access to computers, or when they do, they may have very slow internet connections that make news gathering online impractical. They may also have less time to devote to rating news, because they might have to work longer hours. All of these things could mean less coverage of these groups. Of course, the argument can be made that these groups hardly get any coverage right now, so even some improved coverage because of online citizen journalism will be better. Still, this is something news gatherers should be cognizant of.
The point about the context collapse via YouTube is very interesting, and makes sense. Still, the drama lovers prove that making a general claim, as one YouTuber did, that YouTube forces people to present their “true” selves because they can’t know their audience, has limitations. I also think drama leading to popularity could severely inhibit decent news coverage; it could potentially send us back to the blatant sensationalist days when journalists completely falsified stories in order to gain readers. Hopefully, a combination of citizen and journalists watchdogs can highlight and remove this kind of content.
The video about students made some good points. Personally, debt after school and multi-tasking as a necessity are things I related to. It is definitely true that many students surf Facebook during classes; I have seen them doing it on their laptops. I think this is something journalists could potentially tap into. If the news becomes more interactive, I think it will engage younger people (like our classmates!) Participatory journalism taps into the self-centeredness of youth to some extent (which is also something we should think about in regards to education!)
So to be honest, doing school work on a Saturday morning is not my favorite way to spend the day, but I put it off yesterday, so am forcing myself to be productive despite the urge to not
However, I thought Michael Wesch’s lecture (I did in fact watch the whole thing) to the Library of Congress was very interesting. As we’ve discussed with the Jay Rosen and Rob Curley types, Wesch is another total computer nerd, but he is very good at what he does.
I love to watch a funny YouTube video when it’s emailed to me or I happen on it, but I’m not one to “involve” myself in the YouTube community and interact with video bloggers. I thought the statistic that around 10,000 of the videos posted per day (out of I think 200,000) are made for other YouTubers was very interesting. That does form an online community and in light of today’s extremely busy, disconnected, isolated society that we live in (in terms of face time), that does beg the argument that our community is in fact larger than ever – just with a different make-up.
In terms of news organizations “getting” digital culture – I think they do to a certain extent and are working more and more each day towards adaptation. As we saw in Wesch’s examples of YouTube videos, mainstream media often reports on YouTube stars and the way videos are rapidly spread and how “famous” someone from an online video can quickly become. I think the hesitation from mainstream media is that popular YouTube videos are often fluff, trashy, lacking in any substance, etc., so why should we cater to that? Obviously I haven’t spoken with ABC officials about this, but I could see that as an argument because I often feel that way if I see some stupid video taking air time on the nightly news. However, is that different from other stupid scandalous news reports about celebs that we see all the time?
The aspect that I don’t always think about and news organizations have missed the mark on, and the point that Mindy McAdams addressed is YouTube is about more than just making a silly video. There is a whole dimension of community and people expressing themselves to an alternative audience. Whether you or I agree with that type of interaction with “friends,” it is alive and well and forever a part of our culture.
Some of you might have seen this Dentyne Ice commercial, but if not, go to this link to check it out because it’s a really great ad! It addresses “face time” and how that can not substitute “facebook time,” etc. It definitely goes along with everyone we have been discussing, plus it’s a good commercial, so see what you think…
http://www.threeminutewebsite.com/index.php?cat=ads&ad=tv&p=1
Michael Wesch’s videos are very interesting in the way that he takes the anthropology background and relates it to the coming-of-age for the digital culture and the emerging form of online journalism is slowly trying to follow the example of You Tube.
When it comes to the You Tube phenomenon, I think it is an interesting observation the way Wesch talks about cultural inversion, (what is happening as opposed to what we long for).
For example, the internet gives us an opportunity to express our own individuality through a network, but at the same time, we are forming a community with whoever will view the videos. In a way, we are asking for a community because we are posting something online and the chances of being seen are rather high. Also, sitting in a room and taping a video blog would be an independent act and something that someone would usually choose to do alone. Many times, taping a vlog would be somewhat awkward because you feel like you are talking to yourself, but you are actually forming relationships with a whole world that you may never even see. Therefore, the sense of independence one feels when recording a vlog would probably only last during the recording because soon enough, users will start viewing the video. Lastly, the cultural inversion targets commercialization versus authenticity. Users post videos that are their own and show their genuine creativity, but by posting the videos online and gaining numbers in traffic, the video starts to become commercialized.
Being in one of the most private places to produce a vlog, many users generally express themselves more and are more honest in their approaches when in front of a webcam. This is also ironic because by posting the video through a data base like YouTube, they are placing themselves in one of the most public arenas on the planet right now, according to Wesch.
This user-generated content appeals aesthetically to many viewers. Many people feel overwhelmed with the deep connection they can feel with people whose videos they watch. Typically, it is socially unacceptable to stare at someone for long periods of time, when You Tube gives people the opportunity to stare at and to watch a video over and over. This sounds creepy in a way, but it is the risk that users take when they post something online.
Mindy McAdams is correct in saying that the news organizations sort of missed the point of user-generated content. The “user-generated” part is not necessarily used here because the news organizations are producing and uploading the content. This serves as a type of one-way medium in which viewers are able to comment and respond, but it is not their work. You Tube serves as a connection that we crave, but in real life we see it as restraint.
Aside from the website being a place for people to come together as a community and to share things about themselves or others, the site can also be therapeutic. Wesch says that Bnessel1973 is one of his heroes. Bnessel1973 said the site helped him to actually live in a world where he lost a son. Being different characters is a way that gives him different outlets and enables him to live life differently for once.
Journalists are starting to follow the trend of online content, but they need to start utilizing the outside users more and help to show their content, as well.
I was intrigued by the way Michael Wesch’s videos fused anthropology and digital culture to explain an emerging form of journalism that follows the example set by You Tube.
I was amazed to hear that over 2000,000 videos are posted a day. Hard to believe there is that much interesting stuff going on! But more surprising to me is the fact that there is a huge amount of people who take serious time out of their daily lives to take in all that You Tube has to offer. It has found a way to form a type of community, an extremely large one. The point Wesch makes about cultural inversion (reality versus what we want) is a great way to explain the proliferation of You Tube viewers and the internet in general. Through video posts or blogs we can put ourselves out there any way we want. We have an opportunity to be candidly honest, expressing views we would normally feel compelled to keep private. It provides anonymity in a weird way, because even if thousands of people see your video, those viewing it don’t necessarily know anything about you.
You Tube has become a major shake up to the traditional media landscape, particularly in regards to political coverage. I love that the debates are aired on You Tube, free of commentary and any sort of right or left leaning viewpoints. There is no one on You Tube controlling the types of videos that are put on the site, working to create some sort of uniformity. It makes You Tube a great place to gather information, creating competition with traditional media. I think that is why new sites have begun to work at stepping up their game, trying to make themselves relevant in a time where people don’t need to rely on them for information. It seems like people don’t need the mediation of traditional media anymore.
In this light, I loved that he emphasized the importance of the individual in the mass media landscape. I think that the “conversation” we have talked about in class is more important to people that big media realizes. That’s why You Tube is so successful…no one tells you what to watch. You are given almost infinite options, and you get to choose for yourself what is important and worth your time.
All of these videos were very interesting and thought provoking, but it was especially challenging and even more interesting to link this information to the future of journalism. I think if there was a easy or simple answer to connect the future of the field with web 2.0 and digital culture, we would already have a new product and methodology to news. So, we as students and thinkers are left to theorize about it. Here goes:
Obviously youtube is a cultural and economic phenomenon. Interestingly enough, Michael Wesch begins his lecture by comparing his 5-minute and zero dollar video on web 2.0 with the million dollar commercial ads made for the super bowl by the media giants. Clearly, money and clout have little to do with success when it comes to digital culture and community. While neither Wesch’s video nor ABC’s super bowl ads can constitute journalism, their implications concerning community values are huge. In the age of web 2.0 and digital culture, it is clear that the cultivation of community, ideas, and creativity are essential when it comes to presenting information… especially novel information. The users and creators of youtube have a clear understanding of the three aforementioned concepts. They work to present new and original content in such a way that their audience is empowered, invited to share in the experience, or comment and reply to the information. Journalism, an industry that is accustomed to presenting information as a one-way form of communication, must adapt this ideology to their method of producing news. We as journalists must understand media as being that which mediates human relationships as Welsh says.
Journalists have not learned the value of hyperlocal reporting quickly enough. We have some shining examples (Las Vegas Sun), but far too many papers and publications are behind in this discovery. Youtube embraces the hyperlocal idea interestingly enough in that most of its videos are made for an audience of 100 or fewer people. Socially, many people struggle with self reflection and self awareness. While we strive to be individuals, we still value community. It’s comforting to see that although you may think you are a weirdo who likes to talk about video games from the 60’s, it’s not hard to find a video of other people playing the same games you love online through user generated content. With out social constraint, youtube connects both people and ideas on a global yet local scale. If the news media could grasp this concept of community over concept quicker, we might see a rise in the popularity of news instead of the mostly silly things we see on youtube.
Also, I think that one of the reasons youtube and internet 2.0 is so successful is that it is interactive. As Welsh suggests, we teach the machine. We forge connections and organize content as we see fit. Even considering the way American school systems are set up, there leaves hardly any room for interactivity (consider the banking model). People generally want a role in determining what kind of information they receive, how they receive it, and an option to respond to it. Though there are positives and negatives with youtube such as low quality content, authenticity, privacy, and the lack of monitoring, the news media has ample reason to take the positives from their example of digital culture and apply it to hard news, hyperlocal news, and soft news.
Yes, today’s students are a unique new variety of multi-taskers. The “Vision of Students Today” seemed dead on as far as my own experiences go…the kid who pays but never attends class, facebooking through class, more hours online than in front of tv or studying–nothing new.
What do we do with this info though? If this is today’s student, what’s wrong with this picture? Or is there anything wrong? Is it about making the classes more relevant, or are there simply too many distractions and too much access to them. In one of my other classes I recently overheard a guy telling his friend how his computer wasn’t working and so he MIGHT actually pay attention in class today, to which his friend agreed, yes, why do they even HAVE internet available in classrooms…NO ONE uses it for legitimate purposes! Hmm…that’s a percentage they left off the video: how many people use internet during class for something that actually pertains to that class?
As far as the YouTube sensation goes, who CARES if it’s real or fake? To answer that question you must ask another: What is the purpose of YouTube? OK, so it creates a community. A community where people can sort out there problems by telling others or listening to others…if it helps, scripted or not, just go with it. If we let it become a scandal that some vlog is actually scripted, it will only make more people try to copy their idea with more. YouTube allows you to create your own identity. You don’t know who your audience is, so why should your audience get to know who you are beyond what you choose to tell them. What promises have these vloggers made anyway? If you don’t know a person to begin with, what difference does it make whether they are real or not? Who’s to decide what counts as real anyway?
YouTube has struck gold with its ability to create a community of freedom, empowerment, on a global level, with infinite possibilities. I loved that the video we watched explained the webcam: simultaneously the most private and intimate setting AND the most public and largest audience possible. Yet, still, most videos are viewed less than 100 times.
So, while we continue to suss out exactly what to do with the new possibilities of this web world we live in, apparently it will be chronicled on YouTube for all to see. What job that doesn’t exist today will we all be getting paid to do when we graduate?
The part that I agreed with most was when Wesch talked about Barry Wellman’s “networked individualism.” While the feeling of social disconnection has grown, new networks have emerged for means of connection, and we have now moved from place-to-place connectivity to person-to-person connectivity. I believe that this is one of the biggest reasons why online communities has grown so powerful. It no longer matters who you are or where you are, all it matters is that you put yourself out there and you’ll find people who will connect to you. Actually, people will connect more to you than they will to professionally created media, as seen in the example where Wesch’s video made in his room in Kansas scored more hits than Superbowl commercials, which cost millions of dollars to produce.
This phenomenon of cultural inversion is what journalism has to pay attention to. Sleekly created visuals are great, but sometimes just some low-quality video with someone pouring their heart out will create more impact. Journalists now have to find more ways to really reach out to ‘humans’ as individuals, rather than speak to a nameless, faceless audience with no identity other than their demographic statistics. Journalists can’t be faceless themselves, they have to put themselves out there and connect with the people.
Journalists are trying to do that, through writing on personal blogs and sharing their lives with the community. Some create videos featuring themselves as well, which really lets your readers know what you are like. Some news sites even allows their journalists to incorporate the silly, humorous aspect of youtube videos.
Some people may think that this whole phenomenon is like dumbing down the news, but I think that true dumbness is not being able to adapt to new situations. You can obstinately cling to the old model of media and be noticed by nobody, or you can join the new media and get your message across, even if your message is anti-new media.
Wesch’s lecture and video was really interesting to watch. His anthropological introduction to YouTube caused me to think about this website in ways I have never considered before, especially since the continual thought in my head is that face-to-face communication is the best way to connect with people. I guess for some this may not be the case.
However in the discussion of how this relates to the future of journalism, I’m not sure that I understand it fully or that I can see a connection. From watching the videos, I clearly see how YouTube, vlogs, etc. allow people to make connections, interact and form communities. But at the same time, it seems that these connections were made with videos with more emotional or entertaining content. To me, news and journalism are in a different realm. Whereas the YouTube videos (at least those that were presented in Wesch’s video) I believe for the most part are accessed as a form of entertainment, news is here to inform people about important current events. I guess then, newspapers are at a disadvantage when competing against video, but broadcast news is video. Is there something missing from broadcast that isn’t generating enough…I don’t know, feedback? Enough people viewing it? Again, maybe I’m not getting it, but is it necessarily broadcast news responsibility to connect people and form communities? Actually, after asking this question I can sort of think of ways in which broadcast companies can create a community discussion when it comes to important issues concerning a particular community.
So on to the discussion of citizen journalism. Again, I feel like I’m being the black sheep of the class or something, but I’m not sure what would drive people to prefer a citizen journalist’s content over a professional journalist’s. I guess there could be this sense that the citizen journalist is “one of us” and that the professional has other motivations. So is it that local, professional journalists are not getting the “community” part of it? And if this is the case, why are journalists not getting it? I feel like I’m asking the same type of questions that Seth wants us to answer, so I guess I’m just confused on how it all relates. I hope that I can clear up my confusion with our discussion in class.
P.S. I was sitting in my room watching the Wesch lecture video, and in that part about the vlogs being fake where there’s just this black figure and it looks like it was filmed outside at night…creeped me out big time! I would not look that video up on YouTube.