YouTube a lack of "professionalism"

by chloemenard on February 5, 2014 - 8:29am

Counterpoint: YouTube Lowers the Quality of Entertainment. By: Rich, Alex K., Wagner, Geraldine, Points of View: YouTube, 2013

This article describes YouTube, the online video hosting website, as a way to put “professional” content online that are lacking in the professional technical aspect. A do it yourself that brings cheap digital content into the industry of video making. A waste of time and a waste of money, since the YouTube community draws viewers from cable television in favor of free content available everywhere at anytime. There is also too much contents for people to be able to bound correctly with others. No more shows like “friends” or “Heroes” to gather people together and engage communication. Millions of YouTube videos make impossiblethe task of connecting everyone by a single video. The market also suffers a lot because this new medium of entertainment since advertising is not the easiest with all the videos being embedded on other websites. The new random system of advertisement on video makes it hard for company to associate with a specific type of content or product. In general YouTube is a poor product containing only poor quality videos, illegal contents and no community to bound with.

The community may be one of the center elements of this article. However, in this case the values that are opposing on each case of the debates are the definition itself of community. This article is mostly base on the fact that the communities of cable networks are the main communities that are suffering from the lack of professionalism of YouTube itself. By looking closely at YouTube, all of the people working in partnership with the website, named “Youtubers”, are a community themselves. In opposition to traditional media platform, YouTube is a community based on collaboration and friendship instead of competition and self-centered perspective of cable networks. Therefore, attacking the website on their lack of community is a weak argument. The other point made is the lack of professionalism in the video presented on this medium of entertainment. This statement opposed the freedom of expression, where in this case you should be a “professional” to be able to make your own content. I feel that the freedom of expression is more important in that case, even though if this article had done a more deepened research, they would have noticed that successful people on YouTube are using professional techniques, lightning and camera works. It simply depends what you are looking for, but in either case the quality of a camera does not influence the quality of content in a video. Does YouTube actually lower the quality of entertainment or is it only a threat to the traditional media platform like cable network?

Comments

I am a definite "youtuber" which might make my comment a little bias. I do not find YouTube lowers the quality of entertainment but, enhances it by giving it many different areas of entertainment. it gives everyone an equal chance to be seen by the public. I think I doesn't lower the quality of television as much as it is a threat to traditional media like cable television. It gives the efficiency of television with the associability of a cellphone camera. It gives people the chance to be heard and seen and express themselves does that make it such a bad thing?

I am a definite "youtuber" which might make my comment a little bias. I do not find YouTube lowers the quality of entertainment but, enhances it by giving it many different areas of entertainment. it gives everyone an equal chance to be seen by the public. I think I doesn't lower the quality of television as much as it is a threat to traditional media like cable television. It gives the efficiency of television with the associability of a cellphone camera. It gives people the chance to be heard and seen and express themselves does that make it such a bad thing?

I've decided to comment on your post because YouTube is a website I visit nearly every day, therefore making this very intriguing. On the point of no community I completely agree with you. The community is always sharing videos with one another giving many videos the chance to be recognized by many, which in fact does make YouTubers a bound community. Furthermore, I value "freedom of expression", therefore I obviously think everyone should be allowed to post whatever they desire as long as they follow the terms and conditions. YouTube doesn't have to be professional, there are so many videos that have a very low quality but have over millions of view regardless. People get to capture once in a lifetime moments and upload them to YouTube knowing that they have the opportunity to share their moment with the largest viewer base on the internet. To conclude, I believe YouTube has a great interactive community and everyone should be free to express themselves by sharing their moments with others.

I think the article you chose is an interesting debate and I personally don't understand why YouTube should be a "professional" media. In my opinion, the main purpose of this website is entertainment and it's a way for everybody to share want they want and have some feedbacks from different people (not like Facebook where you are able to control the viewers of your content). Yes there are professional videos and it is great too because a lot of people can see it, but every person is free to show and to watch what they want so if someone doesn't want to watch a poor quality video, nobody is forcing them. I agree with you that it is mainly a debate about the freedom of expression and this article is trying to put professionalism in front of that moral right.

Your post on the social media site YouTube intrigued me since I am basically on it every day. Much like you I disagree with the articles point of view on this site, and freedom of speech is more important in this case. If anything the article should mention how YouTube is the next big thing, and we should be encouraging it. Regardless of the quality of the camera they use or the amount of lighting they have, the way that the “YouTuber” presents themselves and gets there point of view out is professional enough. I have seen some in depth and very professional videos posted on YouTube with simply using a handheld camera or their phones. For example, Tyler Oakley, who now has 7.9 million followers on YouTube alone, started his career posting his videos to YouTube off of his webcam. He is now a supporter of the Trevor Project, which prevents suicide against LGBT youth raising over 1 million dollars through the platform of YouTube through the help of his viewers. I believe that this generous act forms a community that is way powerful than cable television.
“YouTubers” could spend a full day on just filming a video and spend another full day of editing for a video that could last five to ten minutes. This act of dedication is way more professional than an actor who goes on set for a day and remembers a couple lines for the scene then goes home to remember the lines for the following day. They do zero editing when it comes the video itself. Therefore, in my opinion I believe that “YouTubers” are more than professional because they dedicate more into their content than someone who may just act in a small scene.