Archives for posts with tag: online anthro

a tale of two candidate???s video distribution strategies, my post looking at the recent spate of online candidate videos, has circulated a bit on the fringes of the political blog and citizen journalism communities. The first person to comment on it was Brian Russell (Yesh.com), who noted that Ruby Sinreich (lotusmedia.org) first shared the article with him. In that article I had linked to a YouTube video that Brian and Ruby had created responding to Edward’s presidential announcement. A few days later, the Yesh article was picked up by A Blog Around the Clock, which it turn was mirrored on Science Blogs. Finally, Aldon Hynes of the Orient Lodge and Greater Democracy responded to the dialog in post entitled Hope is Presidential.

Simply observing the circulation of my text is a revealing experience (as is watching the flow of related traffic to that post, thank you Feedburner). It also has been reinforcing the things one must think about when they endeavour to begin online fieldwork, especially if one chooses to do so in a public manner. In a wonderful little essay Fire, Loss, and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Robart Sanjek, recounted the story about how the anthropologist Ethel Albert once discovered her Rwandan field assistant Muntu clandestinely interviewing one of Albert’s informants. When asked what he was doing, Muntu replied “Anthropological research, like you. But I know the language, so my research will be better than yours.”[1] Muntu made it clear that what he was recording was his research and he didn’t intend to share it. Of this incident Sanjek wrote:

[Muntu’s] challenge to Albert embodies the present reality of a world in which those whom anthropologists study, everywhere, can read (and write) fieldnotes, let along ethnography. (Sanjek, 1990: 39)

I’m hard pressed to think of an environment this is more true of than the blogosphere. I can’t conceive of conducting online research and not placing some of it into online notes (be they a blog or a wiki). And the moment that occurs, your notes no longer belong to just you. So these types of discussions and circulations become an important part of the fieldwork process. Especially considering that the entire relationship between researcher and informants (or whatever the going term is these days) is so odd. We’re all creating media artifacts and putting them out there for the world to discover, never quite sure of who is viewing what.

The points that Brian and Aldon raised were all good things for me to think about. One thing in particular was Aldon’s comment:

Sen. Edwards??? announcement video on YouTube was a step in the direction of recognizing the different language of online videos, but there is still much further to go. What are the popular online videos? Ask a Ninja, Hope is Emo, Lonelygirl115 and various coke and mentos videos come to mind. Perhaps the 2008 candidates can learn from these videos.

Edwards and Obama can duke it out to see who gets ???Hope is Presidential???. Sen. Clinton, after her webcasts might think about engaging the folks at Ask a Ninja to come up with Ask a Candidate. The lesser know candidates can struggle to see who will be the next Lonely Candidate 2008. The real question is whose videos will be the coke and mentos of the 2008 campaign season. I haven???t seen any like that yet.

Aldon mentions Ask a Ninja, Hope is Emo, and Lonelygirl15 as YouTube exemplars. I’m not quite sure what the candidates can learn from these content creators, as they all are essentially “old media” examples in the new media space. All of these are professionally produced (read as scripted, acted, filmed, and edited by professionals). Lonelygirl15 is an even stranger example to invoke in an essay about grassroots “politicing,” considering that at it’s core Lonelygirl15 was a “manipulation” – professionally produced content presenting itself as reality. That notion of “reality” is at the core of recent political and YouTube discussions. It leads us to these questions that pop up both in regards to candidate’s online presence and to the YouTube/LiveVideo conflict.

What is authenticity in this digital space (provided it’s any different than authenticity in the so-called real world). The negotitation of it, like fieldnotes, is something I’m going to be doing a lot of thinking on in the weeks, months, and years to come.

References:

Bernius, M. (2007) a tale of two candidate???s video distribution strategies
Hynes, A. (2007) Hope is Presidential
Russell, B. (2007) Analyzing Campaign Video Distro Strategies
Sanjek, R. (1990) “Fire, Loss, and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice” in Fieldnotes: The making of Anthropology. Cornell University Press. Ithica NY.

I just found out today that the Associated Press will be carrying blogger’s coverage of the Lewis “Scooter” Libby trial! Here are key excerpts from the press releaser

[The Associated Press] partners with Media Bloggers Association to put bloggers’ coverage of high-profile trial of former Cheney aide on more than 600 newspapers’ websites…. The U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. has provided the MBA with credentials for two media seats at the Libby trial, which started Jan. 16 with jury selection. With jury selection now completed, the trial began in earnest with opening arguments today. …The MBA, which has about 1,000 members, is covering the trial from the overflow Media Center, which is equipped with video, allowing viewing of the trial, and Wi-Fi (wireless internet access), allowing the MBA to wirelessly syndicate a real-time feed of blogger coverage of the Libby trial.

This is huge news on multiple counts, both in terms of citizen journalism and my own research.

I had been aware of the Media Bloggers Association for a little while, but they had dropped off my radar.  Especially since I wasn’t quite sure where to start in terms of my broader cj research. This group seems to provide a wonderful jumping off point.

Before I totally forget to mention it. YouTube announced last Friday that they will be enacting a revenue sharing program. That’s helpful in terms of reaching the community. What didn’t seem like the best idea was doing this at a Swiss Conference instead of in a video on YouTube. To my knowledge, nothing has been official posted there yet (at least no mention in the official YouTube blog, even though they made a post on Jan 27th, the day the news hit).

I’m interested to see how the following comment, excerpted from the article above, will fly within the community:

Hurley said that when YouTube started, he and the site’s other co-founders ??? Steve Chen and Jawed Karim ??? felt revenue-sharing would build a community of users motivated by making money, rather than their love of videos.

But that as the site has grown, they have come to see financial remuneration as a way of improving content.

[You Tube Logo]The YouTube & LiveVideo intrigue continues. I spent a good chunk of Saturday night moving through videos associated with it. Currently, there are nearly 400 video posts that have been made as part of the discussion Renetto began. To put that in perspective, at an average length of five minutes a piece, they currently total over 33 hours of potential footage to review. And the number of responses is rapidly increasing.

I’m not quite ready to fully break things down. I have flagged a number of threads that have emerged.

  • Community
    Everything gets back to the poster’s notions of community. Renetto’s original post accused people of being traitors to “YouTube.” Many responders have identified a major distinction between YouTube the company and the community at YouTube. Few see a specific allegiance to YouTube. Most feel an allegiance to each others.
  • Content Ownership
    This is tied directly to the notion of community, and to the recent media blitz on social computing. Take for example the crowning quote from the 2006 Time Person of the Year issue:

    FOR seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME’s Person of the Year for 2006 is you.???
    Lev Grossman,
    TIME Magazine, December 25, 2006

    The YouTube (and LiveVideo) posters state over and over again that Time was talking about them and not YouTube. While they acknowledge that YouTube provided a novel solution, most posters feel anyone could have done that (and will do so in the future). For posters, the real value came not from the technology, but the content they created. In thier narrative, they were the ones that made YouTube famous. In fact, the general feeling is that YouTube rode to riches on the backs of its posters.

  • YouTube is not part of the YouTube Community
    Add one and two together and you get this. While YouTube posters acknowledge that they are being provided with a free service, they feel that doesn’t make them beholden to the site. Posters also don’t feel the YouTube management (who they refer to to by their first name: Chad, Steve, and Jawed) cares about the community. Many posters indicated that a community requires two way conversation, and that communication to YouTube Management is always one way: posters voice their concerns, but the concerns are never listened to. Some noted the irony that YouTube created a video communication system and then refused to use that tool to engage their own community. This perceived lack of communication, coupled with the notion that YouTube got rich through the efforts of the posters, has led to a lot of the tension (most compliment LiveVideo for it’s rapid response to issues).
  • Google, Money, and Infrastructure
    This one is particularly interesting. So the YouTube community feel’s that community is a two way street. One manifestation of that is communication. Management isn’t talking to them. A second manifestation is in infrastructure. If YouTube fixed the problems that the community has with the technology, then things would be better. But they don’t see that as the case. This is only exacerbated by the influx of Google dollars. In the communities eyes, if 1.6 billion has been invested in YouTube, the least they can do is stabilize the system. Further, considering Google is synonymous with innovation, the community questions why everything wasn’t fixed overnight.1

Well, that’s a start at it. There’s a lot more going on and more to come.

I’ll close with an interesting phrase that’s been popping up as well Plastic Fame, when “one believes they are internet celebrity because they have a large subscriber base.” This particular definition is pulled fromRocco’s House: Plastic Fame SyndromeWhile this post was made prior to Renetto’s initial rant, it was often referenced in response posts like the following one: Fayecast #4: Plastic Fame Syndrome2

As far as I can tell, I’ve tracked the earliest use of the phrase “plastic fame” to this v-blog posting, made in response to another YouTube member’s announcement she was leaving the community.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzXKsWVZlTI)[/youtube]

As to where “Plastic Fame” came from, the best I can come up with is the neo-punk group AFI’s song Paper Airplanes (makeshift wings):

As waves of plastic fame
Go out of fashion,
You’re going out forever unknown.
These waves of plastic fame are drying up
And I smile because you’re dying to become forever unknown.

Without a doubt, this concept of Plastic Fame bubbles beneath all of these discussions. Within the next few days I’m going to take a shot at tackling that.

References:
Bernius, M. (2007) a war of video communities – part 1 – history, http://www.waking-dream.com/blog
Grossman, L. (2006) “TIME???s Person of the Year: You.??? TIME Magazine, 12/25/2006.

1 – What’s interesting to note is the similarity to some of the US’s current issues in Iraq. One of the things analysts have noted is that many Iraqi’s assumed that since the US was a technological and military superpower they should have been immediately able to stabilize the infrastructure — i.e. “if you can put an man on the moon, you should be able to make the lights stay on in Baghdad.”

2 – I’d prefer to show the videos here (the rational for which will be discussing in a future post). Unfortunately, WordPress doesn’t want to play “nice” with the <embed> command and LiveVideo. So until the video posting plug-in is updated for that, I’ll have to wait and post links.

YouTube.com versus LiveVideo.com

The story of similar services vying for the same audience isn’t anything new. What makes this an interesting thread to watch is that as the contenders here are both social computing sites, part of the audience they are competing for are also their primary content creators. The result is a war not just of companies, but rather of self made “celebrities.”

I stumbled across this during my citizen journalist research on YouTube and it sucked me in. The breakdown goes something like this:

  • 2006? – LiveVideo.com comes online
    For the life of me I can’t find a date for this. But I know it happens sometime before October.
  • Oct 9, 2006 Google Acquires YouTube
    The google linkage is will come up numerous times in the arguments that follow.
  • Oct 25, 2006 – Smosh launches a LiveVideo channel
    Smosh, a pair of 19 years olds, were one of the YouTube’s better known successes. The rational behind their move, and the re-branding of their videos as “Powered by LiveVideo.com” will eventually be called into question.
  • Nov 2006 – ~Jan 1, 2007 – relative quietv
  • ~Jan 1 – 20, 2007 – Flurry of activity – Investigation and Migration
    During this period a number of YouTube members post videos reviewing the LiveVideo service. Some announce, via YouTube, that they are setting up duel accounts. A number of prominent YouTube community members1 migrate to LiveVideo entirely.
  • Jan 20, 2007 –Renetto v-blogs “Traitors or Not.. Smosh, Geriatric1927, Boh3m3, DIGITILsOuL?
    Paul Renetto, a well known YouTube v-blogger, attacks Smosh and others YouTube members who have established LiveVideo accounts. He alledges that a number of them were paid by LiveVideo to jump ship and refers to them as traitors.
  • Jan 20 – 23, 2007 – Explosive Response
    Youtube an LiveVideo explode with feedback. On YouTube the video generates 170 response videos. At LiveVideo there are at least 77 responses posted.
  • Jan 23, 2007 -Renetto follows up with “Are you all being duped by a “Corporate Marketing Scam”?
    Renetto responds to the controversy his first post generated. By his account, the majority of feedback he got was negative. Three major points come out of this video:

    1. In October, he was approached by LiveVideo to migrate. He claims that LiveVideo offered to pay him to make the move.
    2. YouTube has paid Renetto, and other members, at least twice for videos. Once for the YouTube Christmas Video, and again for the New Years Eve video.
    3. He was appraochedby a talent agency who claimed that YouTube will be launching some form of revenue sharing program. This agency offered to represent him in artist negotiations with YouTube.

Since that time there has been a bit of back and forth postings. Renetto’s second post has generated at least 58 YouTube video responses so far. More responses are coming on LiveVideo. In the meantime, community members on both sites are posting videos rationalizing their decisions to stay, go, and in some cases remain neutral on these issues.

Ok, with all of that set up, tomorrow (or soon there after) I’m going to dive into the metapragmatics of this exchange as a there’s a lot of “culture” happening as I type.

1 – The list of users will eventually make it up here.