YouTube - CNN - Debate
Can someone please explain to us why the YouTube/CNN debate format was "groundbreaking?" Despite CNN's incessant self-congratulatory remarks, it wasn't much different than the "town hall" style debates of the past - other than having a larger set of questions to select from and the questioners didn't have to wear an Oprah audience wardrobe (i.e. dress like Hillary Clinton) to appear.
Once again, mainstream media demonstrates a failure to understand the fundamental distinction between itself and "new" media. YouTube's appeal is its free-for-all uploading. It does not rely on experts or professionals to select which videos are allowed air time. CNN had over 3000 questions submitted and they selected 3 dozen to use. This is not groundbreaking, it is business as usual - let the professionals decide for the public what is appropriate, interesting, or challenging...allow the experts to determine what is of value and should be made public... Hmm... Sounds an awful lot like curatorial practice...
P.S. Of all the laughable statements made in the debate last night, Hillary Clinton's claim to be progressive was the most astounding.
Once again, mainstream media demonstrates a failure to understand the fundamental distinction between itself and "new" media. YouTube's appeal is its free-for-all uploading. It does not rely on experts or professionals to select which videos are allowed air time. CNN had over 3000 questions submitted and they selected 3 dozen to use. This is not groundbreaking, it is business as usual - let the professionals decide for the public what is appropriate, interesting, or challenging...allow the experts to determine what is of value and should be made public... Hmm... Sounds an awful lot like curatorial practice...
P.S. Of all the laughable statements made in the debate last night, Hillary Clinton's claim to be progressive was the most astounding.
Issued from Dilettante Ventures control room at 17:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home