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.