« Things I Don't Understand | Main | The Truth About Toilets » The Transcendental Deduction of the Vlog02 Apr 2007 04:50 pm In this edition, I defend the vlogging medium from the scurrilous attacks of young Nick Yglesias. Let me also note that YouTube's feature where video needs to be "processed" after uploading is really annoying and Julian Sanchez correctly pointed out to me that using Google Video lets you escape this.
Comments (28)
There is a veritable boatload of information a viewer receives from a vloggers face/voice. Paradoxically video allows us to "read-between-the-lines." When you and Jonah are throwing down on Bloggingheads, I have access to hesitation, pause, 
We need a transcript here. I couldn't get all the way through this.
Good points. The distinction and pluses/minues between print and video in the wider world - yet both of course continue to exist - also seems to be true in the blog/vlog world. (Although there isn't a direct comparison, as the benefits/drawbacks of blogs/vlogs will most likely be different than sanewpapers/tv. (Similar, but different). One other distinction. Vlog, like blogging, seems to be "best", if consumed in byte-sized bits. So your brother is absolutely correct that blogging heads, per se - who has time for the long extended hour discussion? Some people do, but a lot of people won't have the time bandwidth. While more people will have bandwidth for a "short and sweet" point, delivered as this video has, or as some of the best video clips have, or as your brother did in the initial vlog. One benefit of video of course, is personalization. It's COOL to see the Yglesias brothers, to be introduced to the younger brother, to see the similarities/differences to the brothers. For a whole host of reasons. Because your younger brother is "fresh" currently, each succeeding video of the Yglesias brothers is due to get LESS interesting, as well.
NO
The "fun" of course, IS the personalization - seeing your brother, seeing "oh wow, 2 smart brothers!!" But the point of "delivering information" straight, regular blogging is more "useful". But if "the medium is the message", then delivering the "required information" in a fun, interesting manner - That's also good.
I'd like to add to the comment from Chris that "We need a transcript here.", that we should all so have Matt do his vloging under oath!
There's a related point to the issue of people reading faster than the vlogger talks. Most people, especially internet users, actually tend to scan a page rather than read every word or every line. Something you just can't do with a vlog, unless there's a transcript provided. (The bloggingheads feature of breaking each "episode" up into segments comes close, but is still an approximation.) Don't get me wrong, Matt, I found the video interesting, and agree with your point that we're in the infancy of this medium. But I got the gist of what you were saying pretty quickly and found myself sitting through the last minute or so just to make sure there weren't any surprises thrown in there. Ultimately, though, it's apples and oranges. Some folks like one, some the other, some both, and some neither. But if you bite into one expecting to taste the other, you're bound to be disappointed.
Here's my question about vlogging. It has less to do with pure vloggery, and more with the demographic that is involved with same - namely, that the sort of person who heavily utilizes blogging - a format that invites things like anonymity and a detached structuring of an argument - is more likely to be introverted, not a charismatic or great-right-off-the-cuff person. Video is not a forgiving medium if you're shy, nor if you're very deliberative rather than spontaneous in spinning out an idea. I think that vlogging will always be a smallish part of blogging overall, because the things that draw a person to the blog-world are often contradictory to the demands of video. Present company excluded, of course, as you seem fairly comfortable here - as does your brother, despite his protestations that it's an awkward format. That leads me to another question, about the vlogger's reaction to vlogging. I know, personally, that I despise the sound of my own recorded voice; I think watching a vlog of myself would be excruciating, and deter me from doing it again. So, MY, do you enjoy/hate/react with indifference to watching yourself?
That leads me to another question, about the vlogger's reaction to vlogging. I know, personally, that I despise the sound of my own recorded voice; I think watching a vlog of myself would be excruciating, and deter me from doing it again. So, MY, do you enjoy/hate/react with indifference to watching yourself? Like most people, I have an instinctive abhorrence of how my voice sounds on a recording. That said, part of trying to advance one's career as a journalist is agreeing to go on the radio or on TV when people invite you on. Similarly, I agreed to do BloggingHeads episode. Soon enough, I got used to how my voice sounds and I'm comfortable with it. The point about blogger intraversion is, I think, a good one.
shorter MY: performativer widerspruch!
Having a text blog doesn't mean every sentence on it begins with "I". So in terms of aesthetics, to define vlogs by only the current frequency of headshot-and-monologue videos is to needlessly limit the idea of the what a blog-in-video could be. Vlogs can and already do contain non-headshot videos, yet still manage to be about personal expression. Even if we focus on blogs for political commentary and discussion, you can imagine a Crooks and Liars-like site that might comment on video using video and not using text. The ability to juxtapose audio and images is powerful, and as tools get better and users get savvier, we may see richer vlog content. Before that can happen widely, we'll need better tools for shooting, editing, organizing. As well as more open access to mass-media videos from the news providers. Vlogging may never be easier than today's text copy-and-paste, but it could be a lot easier than it is now, and I don't think we're that far off. If you largely judge video by comparing it to text, then it's no surprise that a medium comes off poorly when analyzed with respect to the strengths of a different medium. So I appreciated that you and Catherine and Julian touched one some of video's own strengths: its directness, spontaneity, and a sense of a person behind the ideas. And I agree that it's always good to try stuff and see what works. As the medium matures, it'll find and grow on what does work.
I've been interested in posting videos. I happen to be in China this week. Partially stimulated by Matt, I signed up for google videos. I found that you can't play google videos from China. You Tube works fine. Strong point for YouTube. I can't get some sites from my room in China. Most conspicuous is NY Times. I think this is a Times restriction. I also can't access a website I have on GoDaddy, via web or ftp. Most others are OK.
"We need a transcript here. I couldn't get all the way through this." LOL. You win the comment thread.
Sorry Matt, I watched one yesterday, not watching another. If it's any consolation, I only watched Amanda Congdon once too.
You sound like Ira Glass and look like Margot Kidder. Hot. I think blogging's bad enough, and that neologism "vlogging" sounds like a term from Polish Sadomasochism. Must we abbreviate everything to death? It's too late for web log, but how about video blog? I know it's four syllables, but two of them are just linked strong vowels. I still agree with Nick; most bloggers are awkward, hideously ugly, and we have no need to see their faces or hear their shrill, didactic voices . If someone happens to be comely, I'd rather not see them talk about politics— perhaps naked gardening or a jell-o bath would be more suitable for a sexy blogger like Jonah Goldstein.
These discussions seem to be taking for granted that text is a "more efficient" medium without adequate scrutiny. Certainly text is more efficient at conveying certain kinds of information, especially complex logical relations (and more especially with fairly simple predicates). But that is not the only kind of information. There are tradeoffs involved that can make other kinds of communication more efficient. Everyone know that some things are better settled over a few minutes on the phone than a lengthy e-mail chain, just because the latency is lower. You get your responses right away, and it's much easier to coordinate in real time. Likewise, you'll notice that often text just isn't high-bandwidth enough to carry the full range of emotional nuance you need to convey. If someone sends you a text message "do you want to come over?" at two in the morning and the answer is "no," no string of text, however finely crafted, is going to do half as good a job of navigating the situation as a minute of voice. Audio and video transmit logical relations more slowly, but other kinds of meaning _much_ more efficiently.
Drum's right. I think the "fun" point that you and Catherine are making is a little too vague. People liked your brother's post because your readers like you, are curious about your family, and find amusing the idea of your brother belittling your professional endeavors. If you'd put up a guest post from him with a picture and a note identifying its author as your brother I suspect it would've received a similar response. It's about celebrity, not video. I guess I'm open to your argument that it makes sense to get in on the ground floor and help figure out this medium -- but other people already have, and have done a better job. Check out Ze Frank. His show was all about personal monologues on various issues, and he frequently discussed politics. Obviously he had a different delivery style, type of content and goal in mind. But there must be *some* lessons that could be drawn from his success and applied to political vlogging. There are plenty of other vloggers who have been doing this for a while, too, and who have learned various lessons. The political vlogosphere hasn't bothered to adopt any of these, as far as I can tell. I mean c'mon -- bloggingheads is the standard-bearer, and it isn't on iTunes, doesn't have a Flash player and doesn't make its content embeddable. Presumably this is because of an assumption that political vlogging is a different animal from Ask A Ninja or Rocketboom, and will eventually evolve and mature. But as it's currently progressing, the idea seems to be that polivloggers (let's make these terms as awful as possible) will eventually figure out a way to make a medium consisting of long, unscripted shots of talking heads with bad lighting and no cuts or visual variety into something that's interesting to watch -- well... uh... good luck. The television industry hasn't figured out that trick yet, either. Polivlogging is a medium that could be made entertaining, and I have no doubt that someone will eventually make it so. But it'll require a lot of effort. And the odds seem to be against whoever succeeds at it also happening to be among the most successful text-based bloggers. BTW: if you don't like the processing delay (Google has it too, it's just not as bad -- transcoding to FLV takes time), I strongly suggest blip.tv. Better image quality than Google, very quick processing, and native Quicktime support (when available). And you can specify what the pre-playing image is, too.
On Catherine's point of vlogging being "fun," - I would have watched a vlog of your drunken (?) knife fight from a while back.
Well I learned two things from Vlogging.
It sounded and looked like you prepped quite a bit for this. I think I saw you reading a script/outline. Anyway, along the line of discussion about blogging offering some degree of anonymity, you also don't have to be showered, dressed, away from a source of backlighting, etc. to write a blog post. There's also this need to bookend a video that a all-text blog post doesn't have. It feels abrupt to just stop talking when you've made your point. You never wrap up a text post by saying you have to get back to the family event. We don't care where you went when you stopped writing and hit publish. But video feels more personal and hence the need to say goodbye in some way. It's not a big deal, but it's kind of awkward and counts as a minus in the video column in my mind.
If we extend the analogy of newspaper:blog::tv news:vlog, I do agree that advances in technology will eventually transform the internet into a video-dominated medium, because video is more engaging and entertaining. Also, to be fair, it's a bit silly to worry about the purity of blogging being despoiled by video. The internet was founded by the military, colonized by pornographers and new-economy hucksters, and commandeered by cross-dressing plagiarists before the word "blog" ever existed. Most blogs are either exhibitionist diaries or parasites upon actual news sites. The world of blogging also turned Jonah Goldberg into a columnist at a major newspaper, which is a crime against humanity. But experience has taught us that video is a lousy medium for conveying sophisticated ideas. It encourages shallow analysis, a focus on appearances, and all sorts of other social ills that your mother warned you about. Someone with the ability to churn out ten blog posts per day, most of them smart and well-written (albeit hideously spelled) would seem to be wasting his talents by talking into a camera. JMHO.
If you'd put up a guest post from him with a picture and a note identifying its author as your brother I suspect it would've received a similar response. It's about celebrity, not video. i think that's pretty wrong - it just wouldn't have had the same effect. vlogging takes the voyeuristic impulse in us to the next level. you can get inflections, traits, funny little ticks about folks that you would never get through text. yglesias and little brother side by side in video is much more interesting than two posts side by side. that said: But experience has taught us that video is a lousy medium for conveying sophisticated ideas. is something i agree with very much. in terms of serious blogs and analysis, i don't think vlogging will ever come close to taking over. it'll just be a nice, once-in-a-while complement to the text that could be good when discussing a more light-hearted topic.
Well, I suppose you're probably right that the effect wouldn't have been *exactly* the same. I think whatever difference there would be (assuming the blog post was written to include color like a description of the family home and the screams of kids in the background) could mostly be chalked up to the remaining novelty of vlogs, though. And that won't last forever. I still think that the thing that actually made the content compelling was the blogebrity aspect of it, and I disagree with the idea that video was *that* much more effective a medium for portraying it. All of this is sort of beside the point, I suppose, since playing family member show & tell obviously isn't what's going to make up the majority of videos in this medium. I think it's probably kind of a unique case, and it's not really fair to claim things like this or Julian's Iron Chef intro as examples of polivlogging success. The Garance/Althouse episode of bloggingheads, on the other hand, does seem to be both fair game and fairly compelling.
I still think that the thing that actually made the content compelling was the blogebrity aspect of it, and I disagree with the idea that video was *that* much more effective a medium for portraying it. really? i guess i disagree here again. for personality-based blogs (which i'd argue yglesias is) the video lends a certain element and layer and insight that text just wouldn't have. would you really have been as interested in two side by side essays by yglesias and his brother that argued the same points? well, maybe it's different for us, given that we see matt in person very regularly, but for those who are fans, i imagine the video is pretty compelling. but like i said, i'm not arguing that vlogging is going to take over, or anything. it's just fun, and different, and gives you a sense of context and personality about bloggers that text does not reveal. also, i'll try to capture the next drunken knife fight (of which there are sure to be more) on video.
One thing that I've learned from the video linked here is that Matt still hasn't taken down his Christmas lights. Advantage: vlogosphere!
that's actually really my fault. even though he was very opposed to the idea of the lights in general (he hates christmas, you see) he helped me put them up. but, i mean, we still have a wreath on the door, too. i'm just lazy.
It's about celebrity, not video. Agreed, as long as we all acknowledge that this is a very, very unusual definition of "celebrity." I think Catherine's phrase "personality-based" is more apt - after all, a "celebrity" is somebody lots of people think about even though they don't know them, and the set of people who think about MY without actually knowing him, while certainly not zero, is smaller than the set of people who think about, say, Justin Timberlake without actually knowing him.
Comments closed April 16, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What this post really demonstrates is that you should always include a few relevant text links along with a vlog. I was opening Kevin and Catherine's blog posts withing 15 seconds of the video starting, content to listen to Matt while reading the debate. (I'm into you Matt, but not in that way.) Listening to someone talk about it -- while also being able to see the person and, eg, discover that Garance is pretty nice to look at or whether Matt has abandoned the hoodie -- while reading other people's thoughts is much more engaging than just watching or just reading. So I think there's something to Matt's defense.
Posted by nolaboyd | April 2, 2007 5:17 PM