blackjack21 wrote:Well, to be fair, you didn't set your post up in a manner that would have sparked a discussion on YouTube within the context of McLuhan's theories. You characterized only two types of videos. Think about some punks who beat someone up, video it on their phones, and then upload it to YouTube only to get arrested. What kind of video is that? It's not the loser in the basement, etc. classifications you provided.Dude, you're that guy in Annie Hall...
For example, how do you characterize YouTube videos? Are they hot or cold? As an extension, what does YouTube extend?
I think many of the political commentary videos are cold, meaning they are all based as reactions to world events or media stories that the viewer might already know about or would have to go review a media story to find out.
For example, Gary Franchi's "Next News Network" uses green screen and news desk backdrops to create the impression of a news outlet, while his content is a reaction to existing news. His click bait is typically consistent with his story, but I would say he spends too much time on his branding. I would characterize him as cool. His production, is backdrop slick, but content a little thin.
By contrast, Shirvan Neftchi's "Caspian Report" uses maps, b-roll, voice over, and a narrative supporting a thesis to provide geopolitical analysis. He provides enough supporting information that it is not required to put much effort into interpolating meaning. I would characterize his channel as hot by comparison. However, Caspian Report isn't as reactive. Neftchi takes time to make his videos.
In other words, I would disagree with McLuhan's general premise. In the 1960s, audio at the movies sucked and there were no video players. Today, audio at the movies is quite sophisticated, but people can get a movie and watch a scene over and over. The "hot" context in this case is overwhelmed by newer technology like DVDs. I watch old movies with a buddy, and he constantly pauses it to give his commentary like you might in a film class.
On the other hand, I disagree with McLuhan's critics that he overemphasizes technology in describing cultural change.
YouTube levels the playing field. No longer is a Jeff Bezos able to put out propaganda via the Washington Post in a way that the public no longer sees it. No longer is Bill Gates able to put his Microsoft NBC message out there with MSNBC. Mass media has always been designed to reach a mass audience, but it was always controlled by wealthy narrower interests. YouTube democratizes this process.
A more primitive video format is Mark Dice's commentaries. He often depicts himself as observing media and then reacting to it. His stories are consistent with his hook bait, and usually fairly concise.
I'll be 50 in December. I sometimes enjoy getting on to Hulu and watching shows that I watched as a kid to see how times have changed. One of the things that changed is that show content is much shorter now. An hour long program used to have 50 minutes of content and 10 minutes of commercials. Now they have 40 minutes of content and 20 minutes of commercials.
Shows with plot lines were much more elaborate in the past. Shows with situation comedies were more poignant. For example, I find "All in the Family," "Sanford and Son" etc. far more entertaining while providing a subtext of social change, whereas I cannot even sit through 10 minutes of Madam Secretary, because it is nothing more than propaganda purporting to be drama.
I listen to a few minutes of news and as soon as they get on Trump/Russia, I think to myself "waste of time" and turn it off. I just don't see a lot of value in it.
I think you are missing MB's point, and that's largely MB's own fault for inserting his/her own bias into the discussion, rendering it somewhat still born. Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality. If the medium is the message, Rush Limbaugh is tribal, because radio is aural, like Norse sagas or something. Television is video. That's why FoxNews programs hotties. That's why CNN uses a homosexual anchor.
A book that impressed me in a similar manner to McLuhan's was "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander. He extends McLuhan's theory but restricts it to television and indicates that it cannot be reformed, because of the technology itself.
Well, that's a salient point. Television is a broadcast medium, whereas YouTube is a user-selected demand. While television has changed--thousands of channels fragmenting the market of viewers--and incorporating the ability to record and pause, the content is still produced by larger organizations. YouTube levels the playing field. It gives low capital voices the same standing as high capital voices.
I can't watch Alex Jones, and I think that's a medium/message construct. Jones' icons and click bait link is a "promise" if you will, and when you click on it he is rambling about something totally different. I frequently find myself asking, "When is he going to get to the point" based upon what the "promise" was on the link. Stefan Molyneux does this too. Whereas, I find Lauren Southern gets to the point much faster. Mark Dice is typically right to the point. Cenk Uygur is usually to the point too.
I don't remember whether it was McLuhan or Mander, but one of them supposed that TV is good at defining conflict. So we get these absurd political dialogs like whether or not Obama is a Muslim or whether Trump collude with Russia. They simply have to go with that sort of a narrative in the news business. But then, Archie Bunker and Fred Sanford were also backdrops for defining social conflict, albeit far more entertaining than news outlets.
Well that is the point, isn't it? In McLuhan speak, YouTube levels the playing field between high capital media and low capital media. For example, the interplay between Alex Jones and Megyn Kelly is really a conflict between high capital media (Kelly) and low capital media (Jones). Kelly did the hitpiece, because she is doing the bidding of her high capital masters. MB's frustration is that Alex Jones is more popular than some television channels. While I am probably more in line with Jones politically than I am with Kelly, I find Jones unappealing because he's long winded, rarely gets to the point quickly, and is overly emotional and practically paranoid. By contrast, Megyn Kelly has nice legs, but her tits aren't big enough.
The left has long thought that if they could shut down right wing media, their utopian age would arise out of the ashes. So they are deeply frustrated that right wing voices are metastesizing on the internet, and YouTube is a big source of it.
I think Decky is spot on. What bothers you is someone like Mark Dice absolutely mocking the mainstream media. He'll routinely show that his videos get more views than MTVs for example, and then he'll mock MTV mercilessly. In a McLuhan sense, Dice is declaring victory and taking a victory lap for low capital media in its war with high capital media.
I disagree. MB is lamenting primarily alt-right voices. There's all kinds of shit on YouTube that has nothing to do with MB's analysis. For example if you watch Linus Tech Tips channel, it's basically a small crew that makes videos about technology in a manner that is a hell of a lot cheaper than C-NET. That doesn't make Linus an imbecile. It just means that you don't need a big corporation to make interesting tech videos. That's why I say that YouTube doesn't confer legitimacy so much as it confers a platform to reach a mass audience to anyone who can upload a video. Reaching the mass audience depends on people liking the content.
See? That is what you are missing. They have a media platform, but it doesn't matter what their content is. That's McLuhan. Linus can give tech tips to millions. Is he left of center, right of center, a communist? It doesn't matter? Is he gay, straight? Doesn't matter. The media of YouTube gives him a platform to reach millions without spending a dime for that reach. He only has to spend money on a camera, backdrops or green screens, video editors (open source ones like kdenlive are free), and write a decent story board.
That's exactly it, but MB chose to focus on alt-right vloggers. Do cat videos have legitimacy? It doesn't matter. What matters is the "You" in YouTube. You have a platform to reach millions.
Technically that's correct. That's not what's eating at MB. As I said, Megyn Kelly is big capital media, and Alex Jones is small capital media. That Kelly decided to do a hit piece shows that big capital media knows they are losing ground on the one hand. However, what shocks the mainstream media is that Donald Trump has called in to Alex Jones before. Did Donald Trump get in touch with Alex Jones, because YouTube made Jones legitimate? Not really. What is happening is that high capital media is losing influence, and they had a big influence over politics. They were not able to stop Trump. One of their big frustrations is that Trump tweets. That means Trump bypasses high capital media and their political filter. So does Alex Jones.
Well that's exactly what I mean. Your notion of "nobodies" is basically "low capital." They don't exist as the face of billion dollar corporations. I find that interesting when some of you socialists are debating Decky on this, because you are in effect defending the ultra rich and taking a shit on the poor.
Well, that's what it's really about isn't it? It's not really about understanding YouTube and McLuhan, but trying to analyze why Trump won over Clinton.
Spot on. Trump spent 1/10th of what Hillary spent, and he beat her. Big capital lost the election. High capital media wasn't a difference maker. Low capital media won the day, and unlikely names like Alex Jones unseated much bigger names like MSNBC. A political novice like Donald Trump schooled 16 Republican contenders and the Democratic nominee, all of them with far more political experience than Trump. I heard that Kid Rock was entertaining a run for the senate, and that has the establishment in a dither. They realize now that he actually could win, because they are realizing they are disconnected from the public and people like Kid Rock know mass audiences and their tastes and preferences better than politicians do.
Well, it took power away from the Roman Catholic Church. That was the elite as such when it came to written texts. The press has typically been upper middle class or better in capital requirements. Until very recently it became such that anybody can get a book published.
It's not really about understanding YouTube and McLuhan, but trying to analyze why Trump won over Clinton.Yep, no substance, just superficial chatter.
"So much joy I cry, so much pain I laugh."
The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.
Remember, you need more than one note to make beautiful music.
Love is the missing link!