The problem is nobody wants to pay for anything anymore. Exposure? That's a crock. Before the internet it was hard enough to make a living as a freelance writer. Now everybody expects you to work for free. I'd be curious to know what percentage of writers for the HuffPo actually wound up getting paid assignments because of writing for them.
Yeah, I guess tangible would be a better word. But tactile works.
Accidental culture is just the way I described it, finding an album or book in a friend's collection that looks interesting.
Also, browsing in a bookstore or library. I can't tell you how many books I've bought/borrowed by just looking around in a bookstore or library. As everything goes more invisible, the less chance you have of finding that.
Amazon, Pandora. Netflix et al can "recommend" books, records, movies, but as good as that is, what is lost is the thrill of accidentally stumbling upon something yourself.
I looked forward to hitting the used record stores each week not knowing what I'd find. I remember one find, "Quacky Duck and his Barnyard Friends." Yes, it was the cover and title that made me pick it up. What I found was that it was a record by a bunch of name bluegrass players that just got together to cut a light, fun record.
I also picked up the original London cast recording of Rocky Horror before anyone knew what that was. Yeah, it was the cover.
After I sold my record collection I wished I would have held onto those weird obscure records that will never, ever see the light of day again, in any form.
Oh and one final thing, I was my own DJ when I had my records. At times, especially when people were over, I would play one song at a time from different albums, taking the next one out while another song was playing. And other people would scan the collection and pick out records and suggest songs. You can do that now with a few clicks and sit back. But with that old school method you were actively involved in each song, one at a time.
I'm a huge tech fan. I do it for a living, but there are some old school things I miss.
Okay, I'm finished ;-)
I'm no fan of Bon Jovi's music or the record industry, but I have to agree with much of what he says. I have mixed feelings about invisible culture. On one hand it's great to be able to download the music. On the other hand, I do miss the days of vinyl. I regret the day I sold off my 2,000+ albums. The days of "accidental culture" are fast fading. It used to be you would go to someone's place and peruse their record collection and see something and say, "Hey, this looks cool. Can we hear some of it?
And books, same basic thing. You'd look over their collection of books and pick one, skim through it.
Speaking of books, I still occasionally go the library and look through the stacks to see what might be of interest.
Accidental culture is replaced by invisible culture.
I think you're creating a logic that isn't there. Later in the article they talk about the "mating season"; that there is a two week window in which the producers have to make their money back on any given film before the pirates take over.
Then, they are "forced" to look for the next project in order to keep the money coming.
The pirates may have created the demand beyond the local market but they are the ones making the money off the sale of pirated films, not the people who created them.
What wasn't noted in that article is that the Nigerian filmmakers and musicians have been ramping up their efforts to stop it and that it is a big deal over there.
Here's another take from the website, Modern Ghana, "Kanayo Kanayo, an actor, blamed the NCC for the increase in piracy and the low quality of films produced in the Nigerian Film Industry. Kanayo divided people who work in the industry into two categories, the professionals and the prostitutes.
According to his analysis, the professionals were the ones who concentrated on their primary roles as actors or directors while the prostitutes were the jack-of-all-trade who juggled work in the movie industry with political appointments or business activities. He said that the surge in piracy has driven many professionals in Nollywood to become prostitutes and some have even left for good because they could not make returns for the money spent on making a film."
"The problem is when you confuse price and value. Price gets driven by the real demands of the market, but is not the same as value."
I think you're wrong here. I remember back in the late 80s when I published a small local alternative paper, the fist batch went with FREE on the cover. Not many people picked them up. Someone then suggested I put 50 cents as the price. I did that and even though the papers were still free and in the same places with the other free papers, I found that more people picked them up.
When I started as an independent computer tech, I was told that my rate was too low. I was told by a client/friend that if you charged too low, people think you're an amateur and not very good. So, I raised my rate drastically and I started picking up more clients almost immediately.
So, yeah, I think price and value go hand in hand. At least in the mind of the consumer. I guess it's the old adage, "you get what you pay for."
>>>So the article expresses that this guy has chosen to show everything. It does not say that he didn't think about the ethical considerations first.
Maybe he did, but chose to ignore them.
>>>Personally, I feel like the help that these citizens are getting outweighs the benefits to the cartels, so it's worth it, ethically.
It does help citizens but like I said, just throwing it all up there gives the cartels a platform to intimidate the residents as well. But why show video that is nothing more than a blatant attempt at propaganda or intimidation?
People who live in those places know of the brutality of the gangs. Is it necessary to show it all? Do you feel cheated that the news media in this country didn't show Daniel Pearl getting his throat slit?
I'm not saying he should be shut down. If the blog wants to give people useful information to keep them safer, fine. I just don't understand why he gives a platform to the cartels. How does a video of a cop with a gun to his head "inform" anyone? And what is it informing them about?
>>>That's hilarious. Really, truly hilarious. The only difference between this guy and America's mainstream media is that this guy isn't commenting on it.
Man, you guys just don't get it, do you? According to your standards there should be no filtering at all. It doesn't matter that what you are watching/reading/hearing is true or false.
No matter how smart we think we are, we can't make informed judgments on everything.
So, I guess it's okay to run "uncommented" a video done by a big pharma company that says their new cancer drug is 100% effective in curing cancer? Why not? They gave it to the news station. It's not their position to comment on it.
>>What makes you think that he hasn't thought through the ethical considerations?
The article itself calls it "undifferentiated content." Is it ethical to air a video by a cartel that serves to intimidate local residents?
What ever happened to the idea that just because you can doesn't mean you should?
Let's look at it from a different perspective. Do you go around blabbing everything you know or do you self-censor? Say you're at a dinner party and get seated next to someone who you know everyone dislikes. Do you tell them that no one likes them? It's true, but should you say it?
And regarding that prison video that got the warden arrested. The blogger aired a video of a cop confessing to their involvement with a rival cartel, with a gun to his head. It turned out to be true, but how did the blogger know it was true when he posted the video? Did he do any investigation to find out the validity of the confession or was it just a confession because he had a gun to his head? That's the kind of thing that Lauria was talking about.
>>>How is the public release of your image any more damaging than the public release of your image that would happen when a bad cop gave it out?
So, you're saying the blogger has the same morals as a corrupt cop?
>>>People were not getting the information that they needed, like what areas to avoid during time of violence. This guy has stepped up and filled that gap.
I'm not arguing that point
>>>In at least one case Blog del Narco may have led to a major arrest — of a prison warden after a video posting detailed her alleged system of setting inmates free at night to carry out killings for a drug cartel."
Right. A video taken by a rival cartel sent to del narco to eliminate the competition. Sure, in this case it has a positive outcome, but by the same token, another video could lead to the deaths of innocents.
I brought up the wiki leaks guy. Even he understands the idea that he needs to edit the documents in his possession to safeguard lives.
No, they aren't because they can't. I don't disagree that he is filling a void, I just question his throwing everything he gets up there without any without any ethical considerations such as is he being used by the cartels and/or the govt.
Imagine this scenario. You witness a drug cartel gun down a local cop. The police say they have a witness that can identify the killers. Then, security camera footage shows up on a website and there you are, the only witness. According to you, that's okay. The website should not have taken any steps to blur your image? They shouldn't have been a "gatekeeper" to protect you?
>>>So wouldn't the fact that Blog del Narco is showing the videos help normal journalists? They could say, "Just send the video to Blog del Narco and stop harrassing me"?
You should have read on. The video was on the Narco site.
"The Zetas drug gang, a rival of the Sinaloa cartel, first drew attention to the scandal by kidnapping a local police officer and forcing him to describe the scheme on a video posted to a website that specializes in drug underworld information."
The site is being used by drug cartels as propaganda and the blogger's willingness to throw anything out there aids their cause. In fact, it's being used by law enforcement as well.
So, let's put it all out there. To hell with anyone's safety. We want our news unfiltered so we can judge for ourselves even though we might not have the slightest clue as to what a situation is. After all, we're smarter than those guys who cover it for a living and know more about an issue or situation than we do.
I suppose you would have no problem if WikiLeaks just shoveled the documents they have onto the web without any concern for names of local people who are helping the US in Afghanistan. If they get killed by the Taliban, so what? That's not wikileak's fault. It's the fault of the Taliban. That guy has an agenda but at least he has some consideration about "collateral damage."
To me, while narco does provide some useful info and is able to show what the mainstream can't, it is indiscriminate in what it throws out there. It serves as a propaganda arm of the cartels. It's the old adage, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
You don't have a problem that it is being used by drug cartels to intimidate other drug cartels and those who dare challenge them? It doesn't bother you that 4 journalists were kidnapped and the demand was that one of the videos on the site be played on broadcast TV?
there's a fine line between neutral observer and conduit, especially when that line could very well be between life and death.