Hi, my name is Dana Klion and I am new to the Comm major. I started off my college education as a nutrition major, planning on being a dietician. I am very interested and concerned with my own health and fitness (if I’m not in my room or class I’m at the gym), however I soon discovered I didn’t have much interest in helping others with their diet. So I enrolled in the AEM program to receive a general business degree. After a year, I realized that I wanted to major in marketing and so now I am a junior in the communication department. As I stated earlier I strive to live a healthy lifestyle, which is good because I am obsessed with food. Some local favorites include The Carriage House's Brie-stuffed French toast, coffee-flavored Purity milkshakes, and pizza from the Nines…oh and the chocolate milk from Appel.
An internet phenomenon that interests me is the teaming up of CNN and YouTube to allow voters to ask questions to the candidates over the internet. YouTube started out, at least in my eyes, as a place where amateur videos featuring dumb stunts or home-made music videos were posted. I then discovered that you can watch live concerts and clips from TV shows on the website. The most current development is that YouTube is now used as an avenue for the public to voice their opinions and ask questions to the democratic presidential candidates.
YouTube is an example of live internet-based interactive video and voice. The website is comprised of videos people post online, and comments made by viewers. Those who post videos on YouTube are very audacious because there is no anonymity. The voters who posted their questions on YouTube during the presidential debate in July were well aware that their identity was not going to be censored. They asked the candidates very bold questions in hopes of getting some serious feedback. Questions ranged from a minister asking if he could use religion to deny gay marriage, to someone asking if there would be reparations to African-Americans for slavery. YouTube is a very interesting phenomenon, as it went from a place where high school students could display immature videos to a forum where the public could converse with political figures.
An internet phenomenon that interests me is the teaming up of CNN and YouTube to allow voters to ask questions to the candidates over the internet. YouTube started out, at least in my eyes, as a place where amateur videos featuring dumb stunts or home-made music videos were posted. I then discovered that you can watch live concerts and clips from TV shows on the website. The most current development is that YouTube is now used as an avenue for the public to voice their opinions and ask questions to the democratic presidential candidates.
YouTube is an example of live internet-based interactive video and voice. The website is comprised of videos people post online, and comments made by viewers. Those who post videos on YouTube are very audacious because there is no anonymity. The voters who posted their questions on YouTube during the presidential debate in July were well aware that their identity was not going to be censored. They asked the candidates very bold questions in hopes of getting some serious feedback. Questions ranged from a minister asking if he could use religion to deny gay marriage, to someone asking if there would be reparations to African-Americans for slavery. YouTube is a very interesting phenomenon, as it went from a place where high school students could display immature videos to a forum where the public could converse with political figures.
3 comments:
Dana,
First and foremost, I must admit I chose to comment on your blog because of your mention of Carriage House’s brie-stuffed French toast, which I consider to be one of Ithaca’s greatest attractions! I have yet to go to Purity, but now I feel like I must.
Aside from your taste in food, I was intrigued by your mention of YouTube and its conjunction with CNN for the recent presidential debates. I agree with your analysis of YouTube, in that it has emerged from its initial purpose of broadcasting amateur videos, to playing a large role in current events. I personally felt that this move by both CNN and YouTube was an over-advertised marketing stint. YouTube did nothing besides provide a service that any video-conferencing technology could have done. Regardless, the move was undoubtedly successful at getting YouTube’s image projected to an audience of people who may have been unfamiliar with it.
I found your mention of anonymity to be quite interesting. In most cases, Computer-Mediated Communication employs anonymity. However, the elements of communication exhibited by YouTube resemble those of Face-to-Face communication, in which there is no anonymity. YouTube provides users with the ability to access non-verbal cues such as facial expressions that are otherwise left out of CMC.
Even though the YouTube debates may have been over rated they signified a big shift that is occurring in the way that people get their information. When CNN teamed up with YouTube it showed that people’s attentions are shifting from a few large news and entertainment sources, to the thousands that can be found on the internet. On many Fox News shows there is a short segment where a new or popular “high school immature video” is shown, an attempt of the news station to get in on growing market dominated by YouTube.
Audacious video posters on YouTube, like the ones on the debate, show what happens when the internet becomes less anonymous. On YouTube, the comments found under “Video Responses” are quite a bit different from the ones found under “Text Comments”. When the users have to spend a few minutes getting a camera ready, recording themselves, and posting the video for the entire world to see, they have an entire different persona than when they just quickly type out some garbage from behind an anonymous screen name.
Great thoughts on an interesting subject Dana.
Your post brings up a great point about the evolution of YouTube from a site with videos of amateur breakdancing groups to a significant political influence in the country. I know that I am more inclined to seek information on the internet than on television, since I tend to view television more as a source of entertainment because it is easier to be passive (with the exception of channel-flipping) than it is when you are actively searching for specific information on the internet. With T.V., it’s too easy to flip to an episode of Tom and Jerry when there’s a commercial on FoxNews, and never return to a political debate. This summer I watched democratic debates online, and although I hadn’t been very politically informed on the coming election’s prospective candidates, thanks to the medium, I have at least determined who I will not be voting for and what issues are important to me.
-Interesting post,
Christina
Post a Comment