"M dot Strange": Praise for YouTube; What for Wiki?
Youtube is generally accepted as the most expansive open-source media community in the country, if not the world. With a computer, an internet connection, and of course, a video capturing device, a person can display their story to the globe. By using these tools, along with Youtube’s blog function, M Dot Strange, the subject of David Carr’s January 22nd, 2007 New York Times article “M dot Strange Finds a Way at Sundance,” has demonstrated the power of Youtube as a stage for individuals to transmit their independent unadulterated work to a wide audience. But while I am pleased with the democratization of art media that Youtube promotes, I wonder what M dot Strange success stories might yield for the democratization of news media.
As far as art media is concerned, we have long had independent movie studios, art galleries, and independent bookstores through which to transmit alternative artwork. The news media is considerably more fettered. However, the public nature of the production of M dot Strange’s “We are Strange,” in which he kept his viewers abreast of his progress, reminded me of the alternative, open-source news media which we already have at our fingertips: Wikipedia. But just as I thought to praise Wikipedia, I thought of its lack of reliability. As university students and faculty, we have collectively agreed on what constitutes a reputable source, worthy of use in academic research. Wikepedia, of course, is not one of those. As an adherent to this collective ideal, I was stunned when I read the January 29, 2007 New York Times article “Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively.” According to the article written by Noam Cohen, “more than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court.” I was astounded that lawyers and judges had used material from a source that could be so easily edited and/or appended to. But, then, doesn’t Wikipedia do the exact same thing as Youtube, but with text? There is an accepted format for our stories and images in the mainstream that is subverted by folks like M dot Strange through their use of Youtube and similar communities. To get his film seen he has side-stepped conventional studios and producers. Likewise, Wikipedia-type communities subvert mainstream notions of acceptable form and presentation; they are accountable to nobody but the individual authors.
If we are to rejoice in the proliferation of small (media) arms and our expanded access to modes of production, is it possible for us to restrict our beliefs on what media should be fully democratized and what media should be carefully regulated? Even now, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the idea that Wikipedia will one day become an acceptable source of information. But I do know that it unsettles me to think that we may make certain demands for the freedom of art and entertainment media, while leaving the news media fettered, and inaccessible.
I am an MCM concentrator with a keen interest in issues of black representation via film. I am concerned with this notion that upper-middle class white constitutes the norm of characters in films and on TV, and that other characters must be analyzed in reference to this norm. The idea of other, and how to deconstruct that notion in a cinematic sense, is perhaps what interests me most. As far as film experience, I have made some productions on my Digital 8 camera, including a few shorts back in high school. I’m currently working on a script about the traditional conception of American war heroes in opposition to the new impersonal standard of armed warfare. But of course, I’m putting this project to the side so I can first learn the tools of the trade.
Comments
Is information really democratized on the internet? As you say, "With a computer, an internet connection, and of course, a video capturing device, a person can display their story to the globe" but those three necessities are not fully accessible. I think this is a major misconception of the internet that must be addressed, that it is not available to "everybody" because not everybody has this equipment by economic logistics. In addition, can you really compare a site like Wikipedia, which promenades itself as a bonafide information source by its text and layout, with YouTube, a site that acknowledges its place as an entertainment site? I understand your concern for polluted information via the internet, but YouTube is rarely used as a news source. If anything, it's meant to appeal to the individual (YOUtube) as a mode of self-expression, instead of a platform for the exchange of information. I'm not doubting it can be used for this purpose, but I think to compare it to Wikipedia is a moot point.
Posted by: Guest | January 31, 2007 08:05 PM
I foresaw that some of my points would promote just this sort of response. Forgive me for not elaborating them at the outset, as I did not want write a paper for my first post on the blog.
To your point about the democratization of information and the accessibility of "computer, internet, and video capturing device:" I, of course, realize that these are not accessible to all. But it is not something in the nature of the individual that keeps him from being able to obtain these. In the United States, at least, there is no type of political barrier to who can and cannot own such equipment. An individual does not need a certificate of approval, advanced education, or noble birthright to gain access. In most countries all that is needed is cash. Now, my concept of the democratization of media clearly comes from a bourgeois perspective, from which I can fathom spending $500 for a digital camera. I realize that for some people in my home country of Zambia, this constitutes a year's wages. To this fact, I simply say, my point is that YouTube "promotes" the democratization of media. There is no democratic media at present, I agree with you.
In regard to comparing YouTube and Wikipedia, you have missed my point. Today's (1/31/07) YouTube frontline videos included "B-Boy Stance," "How to Wash a Cat," and "Soda Shop." But there are also independent documentaries about the Sudanese genocide produced by college students, footage posted from little known concerts, and Ku Klux Klan adoration videos. We'd be very lucky to find any of these on mainstream TV. In this frame, in this more sophisticated aspect, do we see YouTube not as simply an entertainment source, but an alternative to what the mainstream teaches us to consider entertaining. I believe self-expression is just the surface of YouTube. Taken to a further extent, YouTube is a chance for individuals to challenge the entertainment they have hitherto been fed, and replace it with their own. In the arena of news media, Wikipedia is similar in this sense. It offers the chance for individuals like you and I to become authorities over news items. I can post my understanding of Idi Amin on YouTube that might contrast with and challenge that which CNN, or the "Last King of Scotland" might put forth. So while you claim my fear is of “polluted information” inundating the media, my statements actually look to the possible benefits of having mainstream news media decentralized in this way. Perhaps its idealistic speech, but I think we have vested far too much stake in the validity and honesty of the established news media. We have long been in need of an expansion of what we consider “reputable” media outlets.
To most of us, the fact that so many court cases have been decided with Wikipedia as a source is rather appalling. But grant me that the use of Wikipedia by the courts is an instance in which the word of the individual (or populous) has been valued on par with the word of the establishment. Our praise for such an equalization of the individual and established authority and our praise of YouTube have the same basis; Wikipedia allows scholars to circumvent the networks, while YouTube allows filmmakers to side step the studios. The fact is this: we can't really be certain of the credentials of someone who posts on Wikipedia. But then, there are certain organic methods through which Wikipedia retains an impressive level of legitimacy. Check out this link about how a Brown grad tested Wikipedia’s worth. http://news.com.com/Esquire+wikis+article+on+Wikipedia+-+page+2/2100-1038_3-5885171-2.html?tag=st.num
So in essence, it is not that YouTube should show news stories. You're right in noting that this is not its primary purpose. My point is rather, that the democratization of news media might be as an acceptable mission as the democratization of art media.
Posted by: Daliso Leslie | February 1, 2007 02:28 AM