So, i made the effort to incorporate concepts from the course into my everyday conversation today, and though my friend probably thinks i’m a little stranger than they remember, we ended up having an interesting discussion about the concepts in the week 2 reading. Particularly in the notion of: “Now that anybody can create and share media, how does that affect ‘serious’ media makers? What about amateur media makers who have a harder time finding a viewership than a cat playing a keyboard?” 

We came to the conclusion that some videos on YouTube can be simple, ‘funniest home video’ style recordings, but that is a necessary part of online video sharing. These are the  videos that generally get shared around and draw in viewers, which boosts the sites overall audience. Their short, comedic  style makes them good for a cheap laugh, and can be enjoyed by a wide range of people. Furthermore, we cant condemn those who make these videos, as although they aren’t particularly polished or ‘high brow,’ they have a right to be there. This is the price we pay for creative freedom, and its a pretty fair price. People shouldn’t have to meet a standard to share their media, and this is the exciting thing for amateur media makers, this is what widely accessible media sharing is all about.

I also read a few posts about interactive documentary that were quite interesting. Gina emphasises that “you have to consider the best possible manner in which your story could be told. ” The same story can be extremely engaging in film, but extremely boring in radio, regardless of how you try to embellish it. Interactive documentary is an example of how new media opens up even more options to media makers about how best to display their work.