Community Guy: RANT: Bloggers morph into Jack Black.
Mack Collier
· 3 years ago
Jake I think you're ultimately right. The problem I had with the article, was that Time was trying to position themselves as being part of the 'social media revolution' by saying 'we' throughout the article. But you look at their site, and all they have are RSS feeds, and a few 'blogs', none of which allow comments.
So really they didn't seem to think that the 'social media revolution' was that big of a deal, but they did think they could sell some extra issues of Time by focusing on it and the content creators. David Armano had a great spin, saying that it was a case of Time trying to become relevant with bloggers, and bloggers using Time to get mainstream exposure. Mutual exploitation ;)
But you're right, if the end result is that Everytown U.S.A gets exposed to these tools that we are enjoying for the first time, that's a good thing.
Jake
· 3 years ago
Fair enough - yours is the first decent explaination of legitimate concern/problem/issue with the stories. I didn't read the articles (there were many) with the same level of concern that you did, but I see where you're coming from.
Thanks for the clarification!
Amanda Congdon
· 3 years ago
Jake,
You misunderstood me.
I believe anyone actively involved online should be included in the "us". Commentors, those who pass on links, bloggers-- popular or not. I chose to display some of my favorites... many are "A" list, some are not. Did you take a look at the comments section of my videoblog? There was a lively discussion regarding this very point. My intent was never to come across as elitist, but instead was to give credit where credit's due-- to all of us who actually participate online.
Jake
· 3 years ago
Amanda, first off welcome to the site. Thanks for taking time to stop by and more importantly leave a comment!
I'll have to check otu the comments, I'm very interested to see what others have to say.
But I'd encourage you to take another look at the video. I checked it out again after reading your comment, and yes, it still comes across in the same way I first thought... at least to me. I think perhaps we are both defining "participation" differently. I take your point to mean that participation = creation, whereas I believe that participation = participation. I believe that this "revolution" we're seeing unfold is as much about the user who clicks the YouTube star rating as it is the person who created the video on YouTube in the first place.
Off to read the comments on your site!
Thanks again for the comment.
Ronald Lewis
· 3 years ago
Jake,
As a podcaster, blogger, and new/social media producer, I find that of the 60 Million+ blogs in existence today, only a handful seem to represent the blogosphere overall. This is a sad reality.
Most "elite" bloggers are also the least accessible, and I tend to wonder, why? Is it because of their thousands of readers per month? Their "status?" Their recognition?
For the past few weeks, I've grown increasingly frustrated by the obvious "I am better than than most" mentality shared by these bloggers.
"We" are supposedly a "community," which means an act of SELFLESSNESS, rather than SELFISHNESS.
I challenge the "elite" bloggers to become more accessible and denounce their obvious egos to help the blogosphere move forward as ONE -- together.
Pierreism
· 3 years ago
Jake, I left a response to your Amanda comment on her blog, but here I'd just like to vent a few more things!
I agree that Amanda seemed to cite Participation as Creation (quote: "I?m saying, everyone who participates is person of the year. Those who remain passive consumers, however, are not.") and this I disagree with.
But as for someone who watches a video being of equal importance to the person who created it:
Yes they're important in the "without people watching it'd get nowhere" side of things, but I give them more credit than passive consumers because they acted on their creativity to make something new. In your YouTube scenario, commenters talk around the video because its a relatively easier process, whereas blogging opinions, making vidcasts, Youtubing takes more effort.
And for that, I give them (creators) more credit, and see them as more deserving of Person Of The Year.
All Comments
So really they didn't seem to think that the 'social media revolution' was that big of a deal, but they did think they could sell some extra issues of Time by focusing on it and the content creators. David Armano had a great spin, saying that it was a case of Time trying to become relevant with bloggers, and bloggers using Time to get mainstream exposure. Mutual exploitation ;)
But you're right, if the end result is that Everytown U.S.A gets exposed to these tools that we are enjoying for the first time, that's a good thing.
Thanks for the clarification!
You misunderstood me.
I believe anyone actively involved online should be included in the "us". Commentors, those who pass on links, bloggers-- popular or not. I chose to display some of my favorites... many are "A" list, some are not. Did you take a look at the comments section of my videoblog? There was a lively discussion regarding this very point. My intent was never to come across as elitist, but instead was to give credit where credit's due-- to all of us who actually participate online.
I'll have to check otu the comments, I'm very interested to see what others have to say.
But I'd encourage you to take another look at the video. I checked it out again after reading your comment, and yes, it still comes across in the same way I first thought... at least to me. I think perhaps we are both defining "participation" differently. I take your point to mean that participation = creation, whereas I believe that participation = participation. I believe that this "revolution" we're seeing unfold is as much about the user who clicks the YouTube star rating as it is the person who created the video on YouTube in the first place.
Off to read the comments on your site!
Thanks again for the comment.
As a podcaster, blogger, and new/social media producer, I find that of the 60 Million+ blogs in existence today, only a handful seem to represent the blogosphere overall. This is a sad reality.
Most "elite" bloggers are also the least accessible, and I tend to wonder, why? Is it because of their thousands of readers per month? Their "status?" Their recognition?
For the past few weeks, I've grown increasingly frustrated by the obvious "I am better than than most" mentality shared by these bloggers.
"We" are supposedly a "community," which means an act of SELFLESSNESS, rather than SELFISHNESS.
I challenge the "elite" bloggers to become more accessible and denounce their obvious egos to help the blogosphere move forward as ONE -- together.
I agree that Amanda seemed to cite Participation as Creation (quote: "I?m saying, everyone who participates is person of the year. Those who remain passive consumers, however, are not.") and this I disagree with.
But as for someone who watches a video being of equal importance to the person who created it:
Yes they're important in the "without people watching it'd get nowhere" side of things, but I give them more credit than passive consumers because they acted on their creativity to make something new. In your YouTube scenario, commenters talk around the video because its a relatively easier process, whereas blogging opinions, making vidcasts, Youtubing takes more effort.
And for that, I give them (creators) more credit, and see them as more deserving of Person Of The Year.