Over at the Network2 blog, there’s a really great conversation, spurred by the comment section more than the meat of the post. Steve Garfield started off by asking if this had to be about “shows” and why not promote people at the same time [updated per Steve's comment]. Christopher S. Penn put out a comment about how new media skipped this election, in his perspective. From there, it *really* goes all out. See the comments here.
At the same time, tonight, I’m watching Chuck Olsen’s amazing work, Blogumentary, and it’s amazing, the power Chuck ascribes to blogs. He came at it from the political world. On his watch, Dan Rather, Trent Lott, and Howard Dean all went down, some related to blogs, and others despite their blog superpowers. It’s astounding.
So, part of me is sitting on the couch watching this and typing to you. I’m thinking something like, “We really should do more with our blogs.” You know who does lots with her blog? Beth Kanter. We should be like Beth. Or Jon Swanson, who is creating Community 2.0 by using his blog and videoblogs and a wiki to reach out to his religious community and turn it into a community at large.
I feel a bit ashamed, I guess, because I mostly talk about the lighter side of it, the glitz of entertainment, the parties, and the community building over drinks. When I was deeply into fitness, maybe that was meaningful. When I was deeply into self-improvement (which I guess I still am, but I don’t write about it here), I might call that useful. But now?
Entertainment is part of life. Storytelling is part of being human. Learning how to tell stories is part of what makes us a society. But some of those comments reminded me that there’s also a responsibility tied in here. Maybe not for everyone. But some of us should be concerned with telling stories that matter, that make a difference in people’s lives. We should consider our voice, our ability to tell a story.
Where will I go with these thoughts? I’m not sure. But I truly feel moved, thanks to Chuck Olsen and his movie, and also
—
Some more thoughts on this, because I can’t seem to purge the ideas from my head by just sitting here.
Before 9/11, I wrote fiction. I wrote a very specific type of fiction that was sparse, full of rough situations and emotions. It was driven by the strange parts of relationships, by sentiments stretched across scenes. It wasn’t especially great fiction, but it used to punch people in the gut and make them feel sad. For whatever reason, that was an emotion I was particularly good at conjuring. On 9/11, I stopped writing fiction, and except for a few really tiny exceptions, I haven’t gone back.
When I consider the things I’m interested in with regards to video on the net, I think of entertainment, diversions, and making people laugh. I’ve got three or four show ideas percolating in my head, and when I consider their basic theme, it’s all entertainment for the sake of making you smile. Nothing wrong with smiles, I admit, but it’s not exactly eating your vegetables either, now, is it?
But then, on the side of trying to push the medium higher and higher, look at the TV shows that are absolutely burned into our psyche. For me, that list is probably something like this: The Brady Bunch, Superfriends, A-Team, MTV (back when they played videos), ER (first four seasons), Seinfeld, and The Simpsons. Of these, only The Simpsons truly worked to capture social commentary, political insight, and anything approaching usefulness.
What, then, should we do? Is there, for instance, far too much entertainment-without-valid-social-commentary in our current mix of video shows on the net? Is the genre of how-to just a way to seem useful while avoiding larger matters? Should I take the storytelling techniques I learn on Josh Leo and transfer them to social commentary?
What’s your take? How do you feel about this space? What value does internet video play in your day?
Related posts:
