Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:
Did Kony 2012 deserve what it got attentionwise? No it didn't
|
Why not? The way a Facebook campaign was able to instantly turn people who were unable to point out Uganda on a map into experts on the country (albeit experts who were still unable to find Uganda on a map) could have major implications for the future of education.
|
My problem with it is that Kony's largely harmless now. Certainly he needs to be brought to justice, but that isn't the sort of thing people should be donating for, unless the Kony 2012 donations were going towards direct aid to the victimized peoples in Uganda. Seems like it all ran rather behind the times...
|
What it reminds me most of is Carlos Santana. When he had one huge hit and suddenly everyone thought he was a new star.
I'm pretty sure you just missed badgenome's sarcasm though.
Hell it's all a part of what may be my biggest pet peeve "Documenteering" made popular by Michael Moore, or probaby someone else before him I don't know.
Hell for another recent example look at Mike Daisy on "This American life."
Or that recent documentry on Sarah Palin.
Someone makes a documentary that's awful and often filled with lies to fit a certain viewpoint, it's passed around like it's true and presented like it's true, the author gets some backlash and falls behind "It's meant to envoke an emotion on the issue, not be 100% factual."
90% of docuemntaries made today would better fit under the label "Propaganda."
Yeah... envole a fake emotion based on your premanufactured garabge. IE meant to be Propaganda.
|
I caught the sarcasm, i was just moving the conversation along.
@ richardhutnik. Reality TV has the same problem as documenteering, and arguably worse, because with documentaries you at least expect some sort of angle, whereas reality TV hides the level of producer control going on behind the scenes quite often.
|
The other side of this is that people don't watch reality TV to get informed, they watch it to be entertained, so the approach may be worse, but the impact is less with reality TV.
|
Indeed, the "deceptive" editing in reality shows essentially amount to thinking a few random people are biggeer douches then they really are. Which tends to be a minor price to pay for all the money they tend to make, espiecally once you get out and get in that weird "reality tv circuit" where they essentially pay you for appearances at parties and such.
|
The BS editing of reality TV worked wonders with poker. You can go and watch the World Series of Poker for free in person. It is that dead dirt dull. With reality TV editing, it is watchable. If it weren't at least watchable, the poker wouldn't of had a boom.
Look at it this way, there is a show that involved the worst jobs on earth, and it has had a multiple season run (Dirty Jobs). You also have Ghost Hunters which has hours of nothing from their engagements and they are able to edit it.
One of the better ones on Youtube, involving two guys tracking down retro videogames is Game Chasers:
http://retrowaretv.com/the-game-chasers/
They are on the quest to track down retro videogames. Proper editing makes the show entertaining to watch.
