Is blogging dead? (ha ha) Is vlogging the new thing now?

No blogging isn’t dead and vlogging must be the “new thing” because even Microsoft Word still has it underlined in red, so it’s not even an established / common word yet. Vlogging is essentially video blogging and is quite prominent in various platforms such as YouTube, Vimeo and even blogs (woah meta).

This media form and convergence has attracted a young demographic for both viewing and creating. According to a 2015 GlobalWebIndex study, 42% of internet users have watched a vlog within the previous month with 16-24 year-olds and 25-34 year-olds being the prominent demographic by 50%. Out of all the platforms, YouTube gathers about 93% of the vlogging views.

We are inundated with vlogs that are made for marketing and entertainment purposes. According to a Variety survey in 2014, 1,500 13-17 year olds in the US claimed that YouTube stars Smosh, The Fine Bros, PewDiePie, KSI and Ryan Higa were more influential for this age group than any traditional film, music or TV stars. An influence that has shifted what we perceive as the “traditional” celebrities. As opposed to a blog, a vlog can be more intimate and personal through a face to camera scenario. Vlogs haven’t been around for too long, but there has been an expansion on the content and the vlogger that likewise, the audience demographic is increasing as well.

So did the video kill the blogging star? No, not at all. It’s only provided the blogging star a new way of to expand their own blog (as I write this on my blog).

There’s a new balance of power between you and us.

I’d describe this as a “love letter” to the “Big Media”. Jay Rosen expresses this shift in what we define as the role of the audience in the media sphere. Back in the pre-new media era, audiences were believed to be passive and were bound by a variety of theories. For instance, The Hypodermic Needle Theory proposed how audiences are passive and respond to moral panic, thus are controlled by the media itself. It was this concept that the message between the sender and receiver was linear and would never be reiterated, a concept that is soooo “former”.

Ironically enough, Rupert Murdoch was quoted by American newspaper editors that that people “want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it”. Suddenly, what was once a distinguished power of the media over The People, is now a fluidity of power between the two where The People have the ability to respond and control what the media presents to them.

Through a condescending yet inclusive tone, Rosen expresses how the power is favouring into the hands of The People. Interestingly, this 2006 blog post exhibits this shift right before any “huge” or “drastic” convergences have occurred such as the smartphone, vlogging, streaming services etc. Fast track ten years later and what Rosen fails to mention is that this superiority over the media isn’t fixed, but is rather shifting.

Even though there are various platforms and ways for The People as active audiences, there are still ways where the media can control The People to an extent. Censorship and classifications are huge controlling factors in what can be consumed or released. But once again, to what extent are these factors “powerful”? Thanks to the internet, all these regulations are practically non-existent where everything that is posted on the web is a permanent footprint. Yes, The People have come a long way in establishing “their voices” and becoming active, but that doesn’t make them THAT powerful (yet).

Reference: Jay Rosen (2006),’The People Formerly Known as the Audience’, PressThink blog, June 27.

A warning that is presented at the beginning of a text or video in order for the audience to be aware of the potentially distressing material that it may contain.

One of the group’s in this Wednesday’s workshop was going to analyse the effectiveness of trigger warnings for their Project Brief Four video essay. I’ve never come across this term until that time, but the concept itself hadn’t been foreign to me.

I definitely agree that trigger warnings are essential in order for the viewer to anticipate or withhold themselves from any distressing and dramatized content that may have effected them in their own personal lives. However, the term trigger warning has transformed into something that’s completely far from its actual meaning. They’ve been used as censorship to stop people from talking about something that doesn’t want to be mentioned. The internet or even life in general isn’t something that can be controlled in terms of what we depict or come across.

Sometimes (actually most of the time) it’s where simple things like common sense must be used, if you know that there’s content that you don’t like, then don’t click or go through with it. So don’t use the term trigger warning to define it as a filter or in some superficial way! It defeats the purpose of what a trigger warning is and actually benefits people who’ve dealt with such traumatic situations.

I’ve come across some articles on this debate. So are trigger warnings really useful in protecting people from potentially traumatic and harmful material? To what extent? Or are they just a figment in the rise of the Nanny State? Let me know!

Courtesy of http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrt9ttGCWO1qg39ewo1_500.gif

Panned by critics and didn’t even gain much of a profit to be even labelled as a flop. So how did such a horrible film actually gain a cult following?

Basically, The Room centres on Lisa having an affair with her fiancé’s best friend Mark in San Francisco. So why is The Room dubbed as the “worst film ever made?” Okay, to avoid spoilers I’ll just mention what you should expect:
– Plot holes
– Resolved conflicts minus the climax or even just the expansion of that conflict (huh? Exactly)
– Moody characters
– Uncomfortable and unnecessary sex scenes
– Repetition (“Oh hai Mark”)
– Weird idioms (“Keep your comments in your pocket”)

After its release in 2003, its reputation, coincidentally attracted the attention of the thriving GIF and YouTube culture. Instantaneously, a Room fandom was incarnated, as well as Tommy Wiseau’s portrayal, writing and direction being acknowledged. Moreover, with the help of a number of A-List celebrities, the film has birthed a computer game, a stage adaptation, numerous memes, parodies, some satirical scholarship, tell-all memoir, and regular screenings in various theatres across the world.

This cult following can be measured by how the audience can bond over a common interest in finding entertainment in the film (ironic or not). Even though Wiseau’s intention wasn’t to make a mockery out of his film, he was still able to attract / lure audiences from all over the world. Despite the negativity and ridicule, Wiseau embraces it as he would always say that “you can laugh, you can cry, you can express yourself, but please don’t hurt each other.”

So I really find this YouTube channel to be a great mix of being entertaining and informative. Mike Rugnetta’s fast paced delivery and visual wit draws in his audience throughout the entire seven minute video. In particular, he was able to explore the issue of copyright through a universally known song; Happy Birthday.

Who knew that the one song that has been translated in every language (even dialect) and has been performed by everyone at every birthday party is still under copyright law? Now owned by Warner Music Group, Happy Birthday is only in their grasp until 2030. But seriously though, I definitely agree that this as a breach on our universal culture, for the sake of a minuscule amount of revenue. But this one hundred plus year-old song is still being played publicly with barely anyone knowing that it is actually protected from the public profiting from it. So if people are treating such a song as if it’s in the public domain, well then why on Earth isn’t it? Why do corporations still need to gain a profit from it?