Sunday, April 20, 2008

9 props

The fact that YouTube depends upon deployment of a certain clip shows me that YouTube in and of itself would not function as well as it does now. For example, gossip "gangsta" Perez Hilton has gained notoriety for using YouTube to show clips that gain thousands and thousands of hits after he blogs about them. If Perez hadn't written about clip "x" would that clip have gained those hits? i know i personally use YouTube to look up things I missed on TV (i.e. an American Idol performance) but only after someone (the news mostly) sensationalizes the performance. I think it's interesting that in and of itself, youtube may not be very successful but by word of mouth, it gains huge popularity. 

1 comment:

Mollie said...

I think the same "word of mouth" sensationalism can be applied to Facebook. There seems to be a parallel between the two forms of communication on other levels also. I noticed one with Jenkins point of the renegotiation between different forms of power, and people renegotiation of boundaries on Facebook. Even though they have different contexts, on YouTube everyone has the same ability to get and use power, while on Facebook everyone has the same ability to get access to people’s information. The problem arises when people a) don’t want certain people below them or against their standpoint to get power, or b) don’t want certain people to see certain parts of their online activity with Facebook.
Also, where number 5 explains how YouTube is a large contributing factor to sensationalism around trivial events or characters, it also seems to demonstrate one of the most problematic issues for the younger generations created by mass media. Almost everything in life can be and is documented, making the “he said, she said” discontinuity easily discarded. Is it more beneficial or harmful? People can have inappropriate pictures or videos taken of them and exposed to the world without their control, but at the same time what would have been unanswered questions or mysteries in the past are now more likely to be solved in the future with such an abundant amount of evidence.