Comments on: Virginia Tech Killer Vlogged Manifesto

By: irina slutsky

irina slutsky — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:51:58 +0000

so not vlogging.

By: Deirdré Straughan

Deirdré Straughan — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:34:13 +0000

While, as a videoblogger (a real one) myself, I don't like being tarred with the same brush as a mass murderer, I dislike even more the fact that the mainstream media has given this guy the publicity he so obviously craved, making him a star after death. How many copycats will this inspire? We don't have long to wait, I fear.

We can probably say that Cho wasn't a videoblogger during life, but he's a viral media superstar post-mortem. Was that a good idea?

By: Chuck Olsen

Chuck Olsen — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:44:28 +0000

Can we agree that sending a text manifesto to a newspaper is not blogging? This is the same thing, but with video.

Please note I agree with the larger point being made, that this technology can be used for good or evil. But calling him a vlogger is wrong for all the reasons we've listed.

More thought on my blog. The Josh Wolf/journalism seems like an easy comparison, but they're different for a lot of reasons.

By: missb

missb — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:36:51 +0000

I'm not going to bother with rehashing what's already here: Cho's actions in no way constituted "vlogging". "vlog-like" isn't any better. What, so once you hold a calera at arm's distance and film yoursle , you're a vlogger? There wasn't even any internet involved, so there you go. Huge mistake, there, kids. Now that MSNBC has clips of it in video format on their site (although seemingly only in the context of previously broadcast news) I guess you could make an argument for it.

Confessional.

By: Zadi

Zadi — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:33:21 +0000

Paul, again I don't mean to disrespect and this is all just my personal opinion. Nothing more. If you really want to continue the conversation you can email me and we can chat.

And Koz is right. So I'll leave it at that.

By: Enric

Enric — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:33:59 +0000

Blogging as a term has always been clear to what it meant as a technology and method. Those involved on videoblogging have pushed away from defining videoblogging saying it'll limit what people can do.

Definitions, if properly assigned, create clear ways to develop something and use it in many ways. Because videoblogging has not been clearly stated, people will use it as they define it as Dave Winer and Liz Gannes have. Richard BF on the videoblogging list has stated an alternate definition of videoblogging as a confessional like genre that could fit Cho's confessional.

By: Koz

Koz — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:22:12 +0000

32 (or should I say, 33?) people are dead, and you all argue over the definition of "vlog".

Grats.

By: Paul Kapustka

Paul Kapustka — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:15:56 +0000

Does anyone else find it ironic that vloggers, who fought hard against narrow definitions of "journalist" that sought to exclude them, now would do the same for vlogging? Zadi, what happens if someone else posts Cho's video to a blog? And who gets to say what's right or wrong? Seems like there is a lot of offense being taken over the use of a term whose definition is far from being set, solid or agreed upon.

By: Liz Gannon inserts foot in mouth, chews | jonnygoldstein.com

Liz Gannon inserts foot in mouth, chews | jonnygoldstein.com — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:19:57 +0000

[...] Gannon, a contributor to the blog NewTeeVee completely misrepresented facts in a headline about the Virginia Tech Massacre: “Virginia Tech Killer Vlogged [...]

By: Zadi

Zadi — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:11:34 +0000

Paul, the web is a wonderful/awful/amazing place. One day we will see the first videoblogger who does something atrocious and it will be newsworthy... but in the larger scheme of things -- making sure we document stories and history correctly, we can't say this person was a videoblogger.

He didn't call himself a videoblogger. He didn't have a videoblog. He didn't post these videos onto a blog or anywhere on the web. If he posted videos on youtube, or any other videosharing site, or a personal blog, or a private blog that no one sees but himself... if he uses the tools the web affords, then yes he's a videoblogger.

Calling Cho a videoblogger because he shot a confessional video and mailed it through the post is like calling my grandmother a videoblogger when she shot my first steps before the web even existed.

I honestly mean no disrespect, I just want to make sure our web history is documented correctly.

By: Eddie Codel

Eddie Codel — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:07:30 +0000

Paul & Liz: I also disagree with the calling of these vlogs. Vlogs are not defined by a particular style of talking into a camera any more than blogs are defined by particular style of writing. You can't ignore the technology framework needed to turn videos in the videoblogs.

By: Paul Kapustka

Paul Kapustka — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:47:09 +0000

Verdi, you make a lot of assumptions that seem to serve your own arguments, and do not pertain to the post or the reality of a news operation. We’re covering this topic because it is of great interest to the new world of TV, and how gatekeeping and information dissemination is changing rapidly. So it’s pretty normal to expect us to cover this topic, and not the controversy surrounding the Attorney General. Chuck, Steve and Zadi, it seems like your definitions of who gets to be called a videoblogger are pretty narrow — is it the distribution method, or the style of production, that earns one the title? I understand that you may not want to be closely associated with someone whose content is so repellingly different than your own outstanding pioneering efforts; but the same tools that are allowing you to break the traditional barriers of broadcasting can also be used by those with less honorable intentions. Such are the prices of freedom and an open Internet. The use of “vlogged” in the headline is a reference to the style of the videos, which is clearly vlog-like. Perhaps you can argue that “Vlog-Style Manifesto” or some other construction in the headline might have been more appealing. But that doesn’t change the fact that the videos do indeed look like videoblogs.

By: Chuck Olsen

Chuck Olsen — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:10:16 +0000

I think Liz is more thoughtful than that Verdi, but I'm sure that's true of the news biz in general this week. The worst thing I saw was a "play-by-play" of the citizen journalist phonecam video on CNN. This isn't the superbowl!

By: Verdi

Verdi — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:58:18 +0000

Here’s why this gets called videoblogging – it makes it justifiable to jump in on all the easy, lurid coverage of this event. If you’re in the news business this is an easy week – just repeat the same story over and over and over. Alberto who? Iraq what? This guy made some video so it must be “videoblogging” yeah! Got that deadline taken care of – this stuff will draw some traffic.

By: Jonny Goldstein

Jonny Goldstein — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:54:01 +0000

Actually, I messed up that last comment. Let me get Chuck's quote right: "The vlog hook is the wrong hook."

I make mistakes too. I suggest you acknowledge your mistake and take it from there.

By: Jonny Goldstein

Jonny Goldstein — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:49:49 +0000

You are wrong on this one. Yes, he speak directly into a camera about his innermost thoughts. He also wrote similar stuff on paper. Then he mailed the DVD and papers. Neither one of these constitute blogging or vlogging. Some videoblogs are confessional, some aren't, just like some books are and some aren't.

As chuck says "The vlog hook is wrong."