Debating the YouTube Debates

YouTube has transformed entertainment as we know it. It serves as the global digital video archive and allows nobodies to become stars. This year, like everything else, YouTube became political.

Last week the second round of YouTube presidential debates took place. The fascinating thing about the debates was simply the use of YouTubers to provide the questions. Aside from that one detail, the debate went about as run-of-mill as any of the previous debates.

The YouTube debates (both the first and second) have been presented as a means wherein the public can directly enter the political arena and have their questions answered by the candidates. Chad Hurley, co-founder of YouTube said, “YouTube enables voters and candidates to communicate in a way that simply was not possible during the last election. For the first time in the history of presidential debates, voters from around the country will be able to ask the future president of the United States a question in video form and hear the answer.” [click for full story] Thus, the debates were promoted in such a way that produced the impression that the YouTubers were being granted direct access to the candidates. But this was not entirely accurate.

The problem with the YouTube debates is that, from the almost 5,000 submissions, the few questions that actually get aired are chosen by the executives at CNN. [click for source] This explains why the YouTube debates fail to produce responses that are any more significant than the responses garnered in the traditional format. Aside from the novelty of having the questions voiced via viral video, the substance of the questions remains the same.

I understand the convenience and possible necessity of CNN having to moderate the questions, but I am still left feeling somewhat slighted. The YouTube debates are billed as bringing the candidates to the people. In reality, we are just being fed the same controlled mess that we have been getting for years.

With the YouTube debate questions being chosen by CNN hierarchies (rather than being voted on by the public or determined by a representative panel), the network is empowered to exert influence over the public through its agenda setting. CNN chose the questions, and CNN chose what candidates received what questions. Thus, CNN has the ability to manipulate who would be viewed favorably by the public. This agenda setting power, while always in existence with mediated news, is especially dangerous when it is shrouded under the guise of pseudo-objectivity.

“All Ways Print”

I am currently working on a documentary concerning the state of the newspaper industry. My focus is set on the role of online media in the distribution of news content. As the newspaper industry struggles to maintain relevance in today’s society, I want to capture the inner-workings and struggles that face traditional journalism.

Central to my project is the efforts of the “Chattanooga Times Free Press” (CTFP) as they work through the difficulties of media convergence. I have spent time with the newspaper’s publisher, Tom Griscom, discussing the successes and failures of his paper. Griscom also shared with me his insider’s perspective on the current strengths and weaknesses found within the news industry. The results thus far have been very interesting and I am excited to be nearing the end of my production.

The working title for the project is “All Ways Print.” The title references the diverse ways that traditional print media is being executed. The title also sums up Griscom’s conviction that, despite the popularity of online news media, “there will always be a print newspaper.”

The formation of “All Ways Print” is based on an interview that I conducted with Griscom. To provide additional context to the film, I have extensively photographed the inner-workings of the CTFP’s newsroom. These photographs will be interspersed throughout “All Ways Print” and offer a glimpse at the personalities and day-to-day operations of the newspaper as it moves toward increasing its online presence.

I intend to post the full-length documentary on this blog by December 5.

Changes in Motion Picture Creation + Distribution

Since its inception, the motion picture industry has embraced new technologies in both the creation and dissemination of its content. From the nickelodeons of the early twentieth century to the emergence of Internet distribution, the film industry has consistently embraced a wide array of communications innovations and technologies. In keeping with the tradition of progress, the film industry has undergone significant change within the past three decades.

The advent of computer generated and engineered content, which began in the mid 70s, drastically altered the face of the motion picture industry. The film “Futureworld” was released in 1976 and provided the first integration of computer generated imagery (CGI) into mainstream cinematography. This drastic step toward digital integration proved to be the spark that would ignite contemporary filmmaking.

This is an early attempt at 3-D CGI.

Following the release of “Futureworld,” CGI gained momentum and became increasingly prevalent throughout subsequent films. Drawing upon this relatively new innovation and the advances in computer technology, the first fully computer animated film “Toy Story” was released in 1995. “Toy Story” proved to raise the bar for animated films. In today’s society nearly all commercially successful animated films rely solely on CGI, making traditional “hand rendered” animation in films obsolete.

Through advances in computer technology, today’s CGI technology is capable of rendering nearly photorealistic productions in films. Nevertheless, despite the rise in CGI prevalence, there remains a glass ceiling of sorts that has prevented a totality in public reception of hyper realistic CGI films. Japanese theorist Masahiro Mori labeled this phenomenon as the “Uncanny Valley.” Mori theorized that simulated lifelike presentations actually have the capacity to be repulsive to the public should they too closely mirror reality without capturing reality to the to the most minute detail. (This theory explains the commercial failure of such films as “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.”)

The current state of CGI technology.

Additional advances in the computer technology have enabled filmmakers to capture and engineer their works with an enormous reduction in production costs. While the film industry used to be largely relegated to an elite few who possessed the funding necessary to produce the films, modern advances have made it possible for an individual to fully produce a full-length feature film at relatively insignificant costs. This fundamental change has enabled the rise of the independent film industry. Notably, Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” was produced on a minuscule budget of only $4 million and went on to reap tremendous financial success, grossing more than $40 million worldwide.

Changes such as those mentioned above are only a few of the innovations that have drastically altered the face of the motion picture industry. Nearly every aspect of film production and distribution has been enhanced or altered through computer technology. Modern films, while appearing to bear many of the hallmarks of traditional cinematography, have become increasingly divorced from the craft of early filmmakers.

The Rise of Low-Rise Music Fashion

Proving that technology has no bounds, the iPod has now been fitted into your underwear. Pl>y, an up-and-coming manufacturer of unmentionables, has launched their latest product: the iBoxer. Designed in both men’s and women’s cuts, the iBoxer is simply an undergarment equipped with an iPod shaped pocket conveniently located on the hip.

Proud of what has quickly become the hallmark of their enterprise, Pl>y boasts of the iBoxer: “It is sure to be a hit among high school and college students who like to hang around the house or in their dorms in their underwear listening to their iPods or carrying their cell phones around.”

The iBoxer was designed by Jeff Danzer (formerly of the brand 2(x)ist). It can be purchased online from www.freshpair.com for only $22. And – as if 100% cotton construction and earbuds were not enough – the iBoxer comes complete with free iTunes downloads.

Podcaustic

Thus far, I have yet to be sold on the idea of podcasts. Podcasts have been presented as the next frontier for the dissemination of information. They are supposed to revolutionize the way people and organizations communicate, but I am skeptical.

As I see it, the problem with podcasts is that they are linear. In order to get the full story on any particular topic, podcasts demand that one digest an entire story as presented. Irrelevant facts and anecdotes cannot be easily avoided. With podcasts the only way to get to desired information is to wade through vast amounts of potentially useless prattle.

This is a problem.

This is going to sound stupid, but people searching for information want only what they want. And, to be truly effective, you must give the people what they want. Though obvious, this is especially true online (and probably why most of my readers have already Googled away from my page.)

The beauty of the Internet is that it allows users to select the information that they want, discard the irrelevant, and then quickly move on to the next item that captures their interest. However, podcasts, like newspapers and other print media, are a dead end for those seeking information.

toying with Apple’s latest toy: the iPhone

I believe that Apple has shaped our culture more than any other single corporation. iPods are the Air Jordans of our generation, Steve Jobs is John Lennon and Bob Dylan, and white plastic has become the new black.

The strength of the Apple brand seems to have an even greater allure than their actual products offered. No longer will any pair of headphones suffice. Even though companies such as Bose offer superior products, the white Apple ear buds have become iconic in our culture.

Apple has become a branding juggernaut. I feel this is to their credit and society’s shame.

I recently had the opportunity to toy around with the new iPhone and I came away with mixed emotions. Allow me to explain.

I had awaited the launch of the iPhone with as much excitement as an ADHD six-year-old hopped up on eggnog on Christmas morning. I wanted to own one. I wanted to touch one. If Freud could analyze me, I’m sure that he would have categorized my iPhone fixation as nothing less than a technological form of penis envy. In short, I saw what I was missing and wished that I could have one for my own.

However, as I held the iPhone in my hand I continually found myself frustrated. First, the typing system is quite awkward. The buttons were too small for my fingers and the numerical characters were separated from the alphabetical characters. Thus, to type something as simple as my e-mail address required a great deal of dexterity, backspacing, and patience.

Also, the e-mail feature was less than convenient. As a person who receives a great deal of spam, I found the e-mail deletion process to be extremely slow. Rather than providing mass selection tools, the iPhone requires that each e-mail be selected then deleted in a two-step process. Thus, to delete 50 pieces of spam, one must perform no less than 100 independent operations. This takes time, and time is not on my side.

Interestingly, despite the problems that I found with my first casual encounter with the iPhone, I still felt an immense urge to have one of my own. The more I thought about this, the more I came to realize that my only true affinity toward the iPhone rests in its design and brand. The actual product did not impress me. The only thing I liked was how it looked, the touch screen, and the fact that it was an iPhone.

P.S. The following is a little political and off-topic, but such is my usual state…

The Economics of Diffusion

In Everett Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations, it is theorized that various groups of people adopt technological innovations at rates that are largely determined by some strong psychological force. The end result possits that the widespread adoption of new technologies follows a traditional S-curve, with a few “innovators” eagerly adopting the new technology and the vast majority of consumers then following their lead (Fig. 1).

However, I am uncertain if it is psychology or economics that most determine the adoption of a new technology. I feel that the vast majority of the public (the working class) simply cannot afford to stay on the forefront of innovation. Roger’s agrees that publics adopt innovations primarily after they percieve a life-enhancing value in the innovation. However, I believe that one’s economic position determines how one views something as “life-enhancing.”

There is risk involved. The adoption of innovations is not without cost. And the earlier that the innovation is adopted, the greater one’s risk is financially.

Nevertheless, personal economic decisions are the result of one’s priorities. This ties back to how one determines what is “life-enhancing.” If television viewing is high on one’s priorities, then a 102″ widescreen HD plasma TV is bound to be seen as more “life-enhancing” than it would be for the non-TV addict. Thus, despite one’s general socio-economic status, one may be inclined to become an “innovator” based upon the innovation’s appeal to one’s priorities. But I feel that is the exception and not the general rule.

Personally, I am fascinated by new innovations. I study them closely. But, I am also poor. Very poor. Therefore, I am able to adopt innovations only after they have become widespread enough that the price-point has dropped significantly.

What I find interesting, and what I would like to see more research into, is that Roger’s bell-curve breakdown of consumers (with “innovators” at 2.5%, “early adopters” at 13.5%, “early majority” at 34%, “late majority” at 34%, and “laggards” at 16%”) seems to mirror the socio-economic breakdown of a typical capitalist society. Is it just a coincidence? I doubt it.

Why I am doing this

Blogs seem to have become cliché. It seems that everywhere I turn people are talking about and writing blogs. Nevertheless, I am proud to be a part of the cliché. This is my fourth blog.

My previous blogs have been very anecdotally oriented. I have never really had a theme for, or point to, my blogs. I would fill countless posts with everything from then-recent photos to mindless prattle. This is something that I am trying to bring an end to.

With this blog I would like to begin regularly posting my more serious thoughts and findings. Rather than merely ranting about the stupidity of movies such as Spiderman III, I would like this site to be a somewhat deeper reflection of my observations. We shall see if I will actually hold to this goal.