by kla4067
My mom sent me this article from the Houston Chronicle and it took me off on a fun journey through a mash-up of old media and new media. First my rant.
This article actually ticked me off, not for the content but for the way it was presented. So many newspapers just shovel their print versions onto the internet without seeing it is a new medium with its own needs and logic. Online is a conversation while print is a monolog (although LTEs simulate a dialog, just not a very effective one.)
Why is there not a single link to any of these videos? Why is there not a single link in the article to anything? It is as if a TV program consisted of simply filming a radio broadcast, microphones , sound effects man and all.
If I am going to read something online, make the content fit the medium and put in links.
So I went and googled the author. Turns out the original LA Times article does actually have the links, even to the video referenced in the article, indicating it gets the medium. But then I looked closer and found out that the reason it has links is because it’s a blog.
Yep, the Houston Chronicle published an article from a blog from the LA Times. But it was presented as if it was just a regular newspaper article, not something written for a different medium (Think a TV show that just showed us the pages from the screenplay, not the movie itself.).
No wonder the article read so different than normal. I originally thought the guy was condescending because he was someone who did not get it. No, it is from a blog where he can be condescending because It’s a blog. And a fun one to read.
Turns out that this LA TImes writer, David Sarno, whose beat is ‘ Internet culture and online entertainment,’ produces articles with lots of personality and snark. That is what is often expected with an online blog. Because there can be lots of comments to add balance. He writes with a personal viewpoint but one that invites a reaction, which can easily be seen in the comments provided.
This blog is a great example of the online medium, and how it often differs from print. It is a conversation between people, not an authority telling us what is happening.
He can be a little snarky, have his soapbox to write with a personal point of view, with opinions that may provoke. But he also provides a soapbox for anyone else who wants to add to the conversation. He is not afraid of the response from his readers and actually uses them to help write other posts.
In fact, this article is only the latest is a series of Fred posts, all adding to the conversation. The first initially brings up Fred and talks about how the author does not understand his popularity. Couple of commenters add context.
The next is a few days later, where the author tried to base the popularity not on creativity but on marketing from a company. This idea was shot down by commenters. Thus the latest article, which now adds much more depth and backstory. It really enhances the conversation, even though there are several items of controversy that the commenters bring up..
It is obvious from these conversations that the author does not get the humor nor understand it. That is a personal issue for any type of humor. But several of his commenters do get the humor and their context is available to all. Thus a conversation which we will continue as we discover just how commercial or how creative Lucas is going to be now that he has begun to find success in Hollywood. This is how online conversations work and why the medium is different than print.
Obviously the Houston Chronicle does not get this. It is like it quoted just part of a conversation from a dinner party, totally out of context. No wonder it sounded kind of off.
I wonder if the Houston Chronicle realized this or if it even cares? Just another indication that it does not really understand the online medium?
So, I went to watch the videos. I found them pretty funny.
You know, I wrote a long rant about how wrong the author of the piece was, but I deleted that and will simply put quote a commenter to the blog:
I agree with commenter Misty who said Fred doesn’t have to appeal only to kids. In my case (60 years old), I think his show is the best thing on YouTube and I can’t get enough of him. I think if one has performed on stage or in film (as I have), or have directed (as I have), you can’t help but notice and appreciate what kind of a talent Lucas Cruikshank is…and his “numbers” or “stats” definitely demonstrate that, too. You can’t sneeze at viewer numbers in the several millions. If people (adults) stand by with shrugged shoulders and “just don’t get it,” that’s their problem. Just because you get older doesn’t mean you suddenly forget human issues such as insecurity about your body (you should see mine for God’s sake) or wish someone hot would return your affections or you want to have a better relationship with your father, and so on…all issues Fred has touched on, plus many more. Also, there is an immensely sweet human being inside there, with touching hopes and dreams coupled with ruthless disappointments, and yet always there is that infectious optimism and willingness to keep on trying (which I HOPE isn’t limited to youth). I’m sorry, I don’t want to ruin Fred by dissecting him, but only the insensitive would think he is nothing but a speeded up chipmunk voice and something only computer literate kids would understand. And what makes you think adults aren’t computer literate? I’ve been on-line since before the Internet was even fully created and had one of the very first desktop computers ever made. Computers have been part of my life ever since the punch-card and reel-to-reel batch processing days…and how hard is it to keep up, really? It’s hard only for a mind that stagnates, but I think that Fred has a remedy for what ails ya.
While it may not be everyone’s cup of tea (neither is George Carlin but he could be incredibly funny), I found it pretty amusing and creative (laughed out loud a couple of times). “My mom says that if you are mad at someone, just sue them” said with all the obvious sincerity of a 6 year old who is left with way too much time on their hands by a single Mom who is out partying too much. Fred is the only person you ever see in his world and after watching a few of the videos, the humor obviously covers some real pathos in the character.
Lucas is actually a pretty expressive actor, one of those people who can twist his face into the emotion he is trying to display. He really ’sells’ the character in ways that are very real and affecting.
When Gilda Radner did the same thing on SNL, it was viewed as a classic. Is this humor that can only be enjoyed by young people? Gilda did not think so and neither do I.
Or is it only unfunny when a 14 year old does it. Heck, several of Lucas’ sketches are better than anything SNL has done for years and he is only 14!!! A 14 year old that is watched by more people than watch most TV shows. A 14 year old from Nebraska who gets the attention of Hollywood. How does that happen and how does that change things?
Spielberg at this age was making home movies in his backyard. You can bet that if youtube was available, they would have been up there. Would this blogger have liked them? Perhaps not but that is not important here.
He allows a platform for those that agree or disagree with him to have a voice. That is how he is a different sort of journalist. This is how the medium is different than the newspaper. It is why I have added his blog to my newsfeeds. He is a journalist who not only is an interesting writer but he gets the new medium.
It fosters conversations, that provide context that lead to richer information transfer.
Technorati Tags: Social media, Web 2.0
