kleinbl00 you and I once had a discussion about youtubers and their influence (or more accurately, because you convinced me of your point, their lack thereof).
In this piece Hank Green asserts
- "Glozell, Bethany and I don’t sit in fancy news studios surrounded by fifty thousand dollar cameras and polished metal and glass backdrops with inlayed 90-inch LCD screens. People trust us because we’ve spent years developing a relationship with them. We have been scrutinized and found not evil. Our legitimacy comes from honesty, not from cultural signals or institutions."
You said, in our comment tree here
- The Glenn Becks and BIll Mahers of the world have to compete in a marketplace - Youtubers can buy influence and their best method towards reach is to spam, spam, spam their way to the top.
If you read this article, does this complicate or clarify your view? Or do you see this as something else entirely? I don't mean to drag your previous comments out in a bad way. He covers a lot of ground here, and I guess you seem a good person to ask.
Allow me to start with a palate cleanser. We'll get back to that. Allow me to point out that this tedious little shitbird was given unfettered access - was encouraged, in fact, not to softball - a sitting President of the United States of America. Because that's sort of a subtext of the article which, of course, was written by a tedious little shitbird. Allow me to also point out that this tedious little shitbird didn't write an article about how his point of view was changed, or why he asked what he asked, or what he thought was important, or what subjects aren't getting covered by the press. He wrote an article about how mean the press was to him. Which, by the by, he punctuated with animated gifs. Including one of Andrew WK. This - tedious little shitbird was given the opportunity to truly interface with the leader of the mutherfucking free world and NPR's takeaway was (Somewhere, Charlie Rose is groaning) So this tedious little shitbird wrote an article - for medium, one of my new favorite entitled hipster rags - in which he describes the Sound and the Fury of Youtubers and their power in the face of establishment media because Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, Crowing about Youtubers interviewing the President is like arguing This guy got into the Bush press corps on merit. Good friend of mine did audio on Obama's first campaign video for Davis Guggenheim. For a long time his Facebook photo was him, micing up Obama, as shot by Davis Guggenheim on Hasselblad. It's a hell of a shot. Obama, in 2008, was an incredibly accessible person, quick witted, easy to get along with, a consummate communicator. He's been in front of the public more than any other president in history. Obama was on fucking Between Two Ferns. Where nothing of substance was discussed, and where the Internet melted down in self-gasm. And here we are, next to a woman who got 46m pageviews for taping herself doing the cinnamon challenge. Does this complicate or clarify my view? This tedious little shitbird sat down to talk to the president and his take-away is Did you know that when you highlight that 24-point quote a "retweet" button pops up automatically?
So let's get a party going (let's get a party going)
Now it's time to party and we'll party hard (party hard)
Let's get a party going (let's get a party going)
When it's time to party we will always party hard
Party hard (party hard, party hard, party hard party hard, party hard, party hard party hard, party hard, party hard...)
Hank Green said there were some "great ideas" in Tuesday's speech but that he joined others in being "a little worried that none of them are at all politically feasible. Am I wrong?"
...they’ll do it through the new legitimacy. Apparently, that’s me.
Since 2008, there has been a steady flow of cash, personnel, and technology from Google’s California headquarters to the White House. Google employees have given the President over $1.5 million in combined donations. In fact, they were his fourth-largest source of cash in 2008, and in third-largest in 2012. Google’s biggest contribution however was the specially-designed technology, not yet available to the public, that allowed Obama to connect with voters in ways his opponents could not.
I know these people. I work with them. And they're not important. They're not a microcosm of anything. They're a desperate cry for attention by a bunch of trust fund kids.
I think sub-consciously they understand the really terrifying thing here. Glozell and Bethany and I weren’t put in a chair next to President Obama because we have cultivated an audience. We were put there because we have cultivated legitimacy.
I did notice the "retweet" option. I can't figure out if medium is actually shit or just trying too hard to be shit. Occasionally something pops up worth looking at though, if only in derision for some. Frankly, this is the opinion i figured you would have - and one that, while I enjoy Hank Green's content, is one that I generally hold myself. I will admit that I should have but didn't think about Google's donations to the Democratic party as a defining element. $1.5 Million, though? is that all it takes to get private audiences with the president? That seems like chump change compared to what the Koch brothers are going to be spending on this next election ($889 million, i believe is the quoted number). There's got to be more going on there. I do think that Green has a point that whatever point he and the other two youtubers had was completely lost in the mainstream discussion of whether or not they should have been there, or been allowed to do it. The gaping hole in that line of thought is that they Didn't have a point or reason to be there, and whether it was conscious or not on the part of the participants this had nothing to do with actual public engagement. This was of course a 100% political move for the Democratic party, played to make themselves look young, hip, and (most importantly) open to tough questions from real people, not those "rich folks". It's 95% sham, to be generous, but at least they're trying i guess.
I want to ask you about this: what happened?Obama, in 2008, was an incredibly accessible person, quick witted, easy to get along with, a consummate communicator. He's been in front of the public more than any other president in history.
I'M on phone so this will be brief and typo-laden. The controversy is not about whether Green and his ilk "deserve" to be there, the controversy is whether they "deserve" to be there as journalists. Again: Obama is a very accessible president. What you see as shown to the press corps is very different than what you see elsewhere... And with GWB or Clinton, the press corps was all you got. So talking to Youtubers? No big. Talking to Youtubers instead of journalists? Outrage. Then to have the Tubers (i like that better; there's an appropriate William Gibson quote) argue the outrage is jealousy? Yeah, the results are entirely predictable. Look: I hate tubers. I hate them because they exist solely to say "look at me!" They are the very purest of attention whores, and considering the wages of attention- whoredom are so grindingly low, a successful attention whore is either funded by his parents or a shameless self-debaser. Either way, they're scum. But largely harmless scum. The great thing about tubers is outside their carefully tended beds of manure they're just like any other vegetable... Wash'em off and throw 'em in the soup. This whole article is about a human potato thinking he's a journalist when in fact, sometimes a potato is exactly what' s needed.
:( I really like Hank Green. He's really good at the youtube thing. He and others produce absolutely amazing educational content on Youtube so I would argue they are different from the "look at me" crowd, that definitely exists on youtube too. They seem to be focused on producing good content, not on becoming "youtube famous" or anything: mostly because they don't need to. Their content gets shared everywhere anyway. And unlike many others i listen to, they often break past the youtube bubble and make it all the way to my mom. I am torn on the President's interview tho. I'm not too sure what to think. They definitely were some cringe-worthy moments but props to Obama, he's reeeally good at handling that stuff. As a member of the younger crowd that Hank talks about in his post, he's right: I don't listen to news. And I did watch this interview mostly because I follow Hank on Youtube and was curious how it will go. Now do I think this should replace real journalists? Definitely not. Maybe I should be more critical of it all but I'm too biased by my simple liking of the guy. I'll have to think about it all. Thanks for the alternate perspective beyond the usual "she did ____ once, thus anything she says is invalid".
Here's the problem: I've never heard of Hank Green before now. Neither has anyone criticizing him. So the first question we have is "who is this person?" and the next question is "why are they interviewing the president?" On first inspection, the answer to Q1 is "yet another archetypal youtube fuck." This is reinforced when the answer to Q2 is "because Youtube." "she did ____ once, thus anything she says is invalid" isn't the point - it's more like "She did _____ once, what has she done since?" and in the case of everyone here, the answer is "fuckall." You like Hank Green. I've never heard of him. So I look him up on Wikipedia and discover he's responsible for the towering circlejerk known as VidCon and already I'm subconsciously mumbling lawyer jokes. Then I read the insipid piece of detritus above and what ends up hurt is your credibility. If someone wishes to be taken seriously beyond Youtube, they need to accomplish something beyond Youtube. Yet the argument presented here is "I'm on Youtube, you're a hater." I mean, examine this for a a minute: There are a few interpretations here: 1) Mr. Green needed something to tweet, so he made up an altercation. 2) Mr. Green is so self-involved that he doesn't even realize conversations should be performed in a conversational tone of voice. 3) Mr. Green wishes the entire world to know that he's so excited about him that he forgot not to shout into an empty room. (because really, shouting into an empty room is the essence of tuberdom) A friend's dad once called to complain to the management of the Hyatt Regency Reunion in Dallas because the people above him were making far too much noise. As it turns out, the people above him were The Beastie Boys, who opted to warm up for the opener of The Together Forever Tour (with Run DMC) by rawkin' out in their suite. And you know what? The Hyatt got the Beasties to quiet down because it's impolite to warm up for your arena tour where other people are trying to relax. Even if you're the Beastie Boys. Hank Green is not the Beastie Boys. If he ever wants to be the Beastie Boys, he needs to attract the interest of people who don't give the first fuck about Youtube. What he's doing here is increasing my hatred of Youtube and everyone on it... and I say that knowing Youtube-related work made me more than $30k last year.Hotel security just chastised me for practicing my interview questions too loudly! I'M INTERVIEWING THE PRESIDENT YOU CAN SLEEP TOMORROW!!
Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I got sidetracked. Mainly, I just don't get the whole hate for Youtube in general. Like I said, I'm torn on the president interview thing but I find some stuff on youtube amazing. It's not only cat videos and self obsessed teenagers. The youtube channels I listen most are educational and I find that Hank Green produces really good content. Of course it's not perfect and simplified to be more accessible. Of course CrashCourse World History is not the best place to learn world history, but it's an amazing starting point, especially to get young people interested. I know I listened to more than 7h podcast on the Mongols after the 10 mins episode on the Mongols. I just don't see the fact that accomplishing something on youtube is not worth much. The project for awesome is a Youtube event he created that raised 1.2 million $ this year. Even if that's all a circlejerk, it's a circlejerk that actually does some good. In the end, maybe the guy that created crash course is not the guy to interview the president, but the fact that his accomplishments are all within youtube doesn't make it any less interesting to me. After all, I totally see the logic of the White House when they do that. Of course it would be great if they could reach the younger electorate through the new yorker, but that's simply not the reality today and something like that is actually a pretty good way to get that audience to listen. Pretty much the same reason Obama did an AMA on reddit. But on the other hand I'm sure nobody would appreciate the president getting interviewed by Justin Bieber... I guess that the debates lies in the fact of where the line lies between "the present is in touch with the youngins" and "that's unacceptable". I'm sure some people found the interviews on the Daily Show as stupid too. PS: The brain scoop is a channel he helped Emily start and it's pretty awesome too.
I've worked with Morgan Freeman. I've worked with Carson Daly. I've worked with Jessica Alba. I've worked with Ryan Secrest. I've worked with Reba McIntyre. I've worked with Sharon Osbourne. I've worked with Shirley Jones. I've worked with Hannah Hart. Can you guess which one was an order of magnitude more of a pain in the ass? Can you guess which one has accomplished exactly fuckall beyond Youtube? Now - you can extend that. I just looked at the Vidcon 2014 speakers and I've worked with about 40% of them. And everything I said about Hannah Hart? Holds true for every single person I've worked with. I'm glad someone on Youtube encouraged you to listen to a podcast about the Mongols. But nobody I've worked with who does anything on Youtube has ever done anything that would interest anyone over 20, and they've never done anything that isn't all about them. And that's where the Youtube hate comes from: Entitled attention whores that add nothing to the general dialogue and are more of a pain in the ass to work with than Ryan Secrest. This is not an idle observation. This is a cumulative experience over half a decade interacting with these fucks, rather than simply clicking on their faces.Mainly, I just don't get the whole hate for Youtube in general.
Hannah Hart? Is she the lady that cooks while drunk ? I think I watched one of her videos at some point and decided my time would be better spent getting drunk and cooking myself. Yeah, you're right that our experiences differ greatly. I've never actually talked to any Youtubers, I'm simply a consumer. I guess all I'm left with is the hope that the ones I listen to are different. I think 70% of my feed are 40 year old men making educational content and try to keep their private life private. Soooo I'll cling on to my hope they're different from the teenagers and keep enjoying the content :D Destin from SmarterEveryDay seems like the most genuine, dedicated and interesting person ever. He wants to be an astronaut. Like for real. I think he's an aerospace engineer and actively tries to get the job. I'd love to talk to him someday. Thanks for the perspective tho, I don't hear a lot of anti-youtube arguments in my personal internet bubble.
I have no meat in this conversation, but I do have one thing to say. Why is Bieber the punching bag for a younger generation? He's just a pop singer, and more to the point, he hasn't been relevant for years as the "new big thing." Why is he the picture of the new hip-young-old folks of the Internet?
He sure comes across as super-douchey in every interview I've ever seen. However, the one person I know that has actually interacted with him was an epic prick to Justin Bieber. Buddy of mine was doing some PSAs with Selena Gomez back when they were dating and Bieber was just sort of hanging out. He came up to my buddy the sound guy and said "Hey, man, what's happening? Can I borrow a set of cans to listen in on this?" Now, normally the response to anyone asking to listen on a PSA is "absolutely, I brought a dozen comteks for this specific purpose and I'm billing the production company $15 each so you bet! Here's one just for you!" but my buddy responded with get away from me, you douche. It's kind of a chicken-or-egg problem: if total strangers have no problems calling you a douche to your face when they've never so much as interacted with you before, do you have any incentive to NOT be a douche?
Just because your honest doesn't mean the information your putting out is necessarily more trustworthy or correct than any other organization. YouTube is the last place I would go for informed, legitimate news and political opinion, and I can't respect anyone who treats it as their primary source of information. Fox News and MSNBC may not be considered legitmate news sources, but there are any other number of news organizations that I still trust. The NY Times and Washington Post instantly spring to mind. Get off your high horse, Hank Green.Glozell, Bethany and I don’t sit in fancy news studios surrounded by fifty thousand dollar cameras and polished metal and glass backdrops with inlayed 90-inch LCD screens. People trust us because we’ve spent years developing a relationship with them. We have been scrutinized and found not evil. Our legitimacy comes from honesty, not from cultural signals or institutions.
I think this is the short version of what needs to be said here.Get off your high horse, Hank Green.